EFFECT OF ROW SPACING AND WEED CONTROL METHODS ON

WEED DYNAMICS, YIELD COMPONENTS AND YIELD OF BREAD

WHEAT (Triticum aestivum L.) AT BALE HIGHLANDS, SOUTH
EASTERN ETHIOPIA

M.Sc. THESIS

WONDWOSEN NEGA

OCTOBER 2019
MADDA WALABU UNIVERSITY, BALE-ROBE
 Effect of Row Spacing and Weed Control Methods on Weed Dynamics,
Yield Components and Yield of Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) at Bale
High lands, South Eastern Ethiopia

A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Plant Sciences,

School of Graduate Studies
MADA WALABU UNIVERSITY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN PLANT SCIENCES (AGRONOMY)

Wondwosen Nega

September 2019
Madda Walabu University, Bale Robe

ii
 SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
MADDA WALABU UNIVERSITY

As Thesis Research advisors, we hereby certify that we have read and evaluated this thesis
prepared, under our guidance, by Wondwosen Nega Mekonnin entitled ‘Effect
of Row
Spacing and Weed Control Methods on Weed Dynamics, Yield Components
and Yield of Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) at Bale Highlands, South
Eastern Ethiopia’. We recommend that the thesis be submitted as it fulfill of the
requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Science.

Mengesha Kebede (PhD ) _________________ _________________

Major Advisor Signature Date

Jemal Abdulkerim (Ass.pro) _________________ ________________

Co-advisor Signature Date

As members of the Board of Examiners of the M.Sc. thesis open defense examination, we
certify that we have read, evaluated the thesis prepared by Wondwosen Nega Mekonnin and
examined the candidate. We recommend that the thesis be accepted as it fulfills the
requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Plant Sciences (Agronomy).

______________________ _________________ _______________

Chairperson Signature Date

______________________ _________________ _______________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

______________________ _________________ _______________

External Examiner Signature Date

iii
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this piece of work to my beloved mother W/o Etagegnehu Ayalewu for nursing me
with affection and love and for her dedicated partnership in the success of my life.

iv
 STATEMENT OF AUTHOR

First, I declare that this thesis is a result of my own genuine work and that all sources of
materials used for writing it have been appropriately acknowledged. This thesis has been
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in
Agriculture (Agronomy) at Madda Walabu University and is deposited at the library of the
University to be made available to borrowers under the rules and regulations of the library. I
solemnly declare that this thesis has not been submitted to any other institution anywhere for
obtaining any academic degree, diploma or certificate.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without requiring special permission provided
that an accurate acknowledgement of source is made. Requests for permission for extended
quotations from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the
head of the Department of plant Sciences or the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies when
in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is for a scholarly interest. In all other
instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

Name: Wondwosen Nega Mekonnin Signature: _______________

Place: Madda Walabu University, Bale Robe

Date of Submission: ______________

v
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The author, Wondwosen Nega Mekonnin was born in July 25, 1987 in Arsi Administrative
Zone Robe town. He attended primary education at Amigna Gesgar Elementary School,
Dedea Junior and Senior Secondary School, and completed his secondary education at Didea
Senior Secondary School in April 1997. After completion of his secondary education, he
joined Mekelle University and graduated in B.Sc. Degree Dry land Crop and Horticultural
Sciences in 2009. After completion of his B.Sc. study, he was employed by the Oromia
Pastoralist Commission and assigned at Harenna Buluk Woreda Pastoralist Development
Office, Bale zone. At this center, he served as a coffee agronomist, Woreda Irrigation
Authority as a Horticulturalist and Bale Zone as coffee agronomist starting from September
2009 up to September 2016. In September 2016, he joined the School of Graduate Studies of
Madda Welabu University to pursue a study leading to the M.Sc. Degree in Agronomy.

vi
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Right from the outset, I praise the almighty God for keeping me healthy and energetic to
successfully undertake the course work, field, laboratory, and library research, and to compile
this manuscript.

I am highly grateful to my major advisor Dr. Mengesha Kebede, for his consistent guidance,
encouragement and critical remarks while developing the proposal, for giving constructive
and valuable comments and suggestions that shaped this thesis. My deepest gratitude goes to
my co-advisor Mr. Jemal Abdulkerim (Assistant Professor) for his permission to carry out the
research his interest in the work, frequent supervision with genuine comments, and reviewing
the thesis. His support to use related facilties is fully acknowledged.

I also like to thank the staff members of Sinana Agricultural Research Center (SARC) for
their valuable assistance during the field work. My special thank go to Mr.Muhamed Beriso
Head of SARC for his nice cooperation and providing me with necessary facilties, land and
laboratory equipments during the course of my experimental work. The Bale Zone Coffee and
Tea Authority are highly acknowledged for awarding the study leave and the smooth
administrative support and financial support is admirable. Again my special thank go to
Oromia Seed Enterprise (OSE) for their cooperation and providing me basic seed source for
my experiment.

Of innumerable people who helped me during this research, a few must be thanked
specifically my friend Tesfaye Abebayehu, Endashaw Tadesse, Gosaye Kebebe , Solomon
Garedew, Habtamu Mergia, Mulugeta Ambaw, Alemayehu Zewudie,Wubalem Asafa, Yosef
Bekele, Mulugeta Nega, Tsedalu Getachew and Almaze Nega, who were consistently with me
with their constructive comments and positive attitudes towards my work and helped me in
many different ways.

vii
 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CSA Central Statistics Authority

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GAIN Global Agricultural Information Network
m.a.s.l. Meters Above Sea Level
MoARO Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
MWU Madda Walabu University
SARC Sinana Agricultural Research Center
USDA United States Department of Agriculture

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHOR v
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS viii
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX xii
ABSTRACT xiii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. REVIEW OF LTERATURE 5
2.1. Description and Origin of Wheat 5
2.2. Ecology of Wheat 5
2.3. Importance of Wheat 6
2.4. Economic Importance of Weeds 7
2.5. Crop-Weed Competition 8
2.5.1. Critical period of competition 8
2.5.2. Competition for growth factors 9
2.5.3. Yield losses due to weeds 10
2.6. Weed Management in Wheat 11
2.6.1. Preventive and cultural methods 11
2.6.2. Mechanical methods 12
2.6.3. Chemical methods 12
2.7. Row spacing in Weed Management 16
2.8. Weed Flora in Wheat 20
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 21
3.1. Description of the Experimental Site 21
3.2. Treatments and Experimental Design 21
3.3. Agronomic Practice 22
3.4. Data Collection and Measurements 22
3.4.1. Soil data 22
3.4.2. Weed data 23

ix
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

3.4.3. Crop data 24

3.5. Economic Analysis 25
3.6. Statistical Analysis 26
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 27
4.1. Physico-Chemical Properties of the Soils of Experimental Sites 27
4.2. Weed Parameter 28
4.2.1. Weed flora in the experimental fields 28
4.2.2. Weed Population 30
4.2.3. Weed dry weight 34
4.2.4. Weed control efficiency 35
4.3. Crop Parameters 36
4.3.1. Plant height and days to flowering 36
4.3.2. Days to physiological maturity 38
4.3.3. Number of effective tillers per plant 39
4.3.4. Spike length 40
4.3.5. Number of seeds per spike 41
4.3.6. Aboveground biomass (Kg ha-1) 42
4.3.7. Grain yield 43
4.3.8. Thousand seed weight 44
4.3.9. Harvest index 45
4.3.10. Yield loss 46
4.4. Correlation Analysis on Yield Components and Yield of Bread Wheat 47
4.5. Economic Analysis 48
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 50
6. REFERENCE 53
7. APPENDIX 65

x
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Soil physical and chemical properties of soils of experimental sites 28
2. Density (plants m-2) and percent of weed species in the experimental fields of SARC
and MWU bread wheat. 29
3. Effect row spacing and weed control methods on grass and sedges weeds 32
4. Effect row spacing and weed control methods on broad leaved weeds and total weeds 34
5. Effect row spacing and weed control methods on weed dry matter and weed control
efficiency 36
6. Effect row spacing and weed control methods on plant height and days to flowering 38
7. Effect row spacing and herbicide rate on days to physiological maturity 39
8. Effect row spacing and weed control methods on number of effective tillers 40
9. Effect row spacing and weed control methods on spike length and number of seeds per
spike 42
10. Effect row spacing and weed control methods on biomass yield and grain yield
(kg/ha) 44
11. Effect row spacing and weed control methods on thousand kernel weights and
Harvest Index % 46
12. Effect row spacing and weed control methods on yield loss (%) 46
13. Correlation analysis of Bread wheat agronomic parameters 47
14. Profitabilty of weed control methods in wheat 49

xi
 LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX

Appendix Table Page

1. Meteorological data of temperature and rain fall of MWU and SARC at year 2018. 66
2. ANOVA table for weed densities and weed dry weight due to sites, row spacing and
herbicide rate method and their interaction at MWU and SARC. 66
3. ANOVA table for bread wheat growth parameters as affected by row spacing and
weed control method at MWU and SARC 67
4. ANOVA table for bread wheat growth parameters as affected by row spacing and
weed control method at MWU and SARC 67

xii
Effect of Row Spacing and Weed Control Methods on Weed Dynamics,
Yield Components and Yield of Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) at
Bale Highlands, South Eastern Ethiopia

ABSTRACT

Weed infestation can cause a substantial yield loss in bread wheat in Ethiopia. Hence, the present study
was conducted to: assess the effect of row spacing and weed control practices on weed, yield components
and yield of bread wheat . Three row spacing (15, 20, 25 cm) and five weed control practices (Pyroxsulam
0.5, 0.37 and 0.25 lt ha-1, weed free and weedy check) were laid out in randomized complete block design
(RCBD) in factorial arrangement with three replications. The two experiment field was infested mostly with
broad leaf weeds belonging to seven plant families and two major grass weed species (Avena fatual.L) and
(Digitaria abyssinica.) were observed on the experimental area while sedge weed were observed only at
SARC. The lowest total weed density (7 m-2) and (11.8 m-2) was obtained from 15 cm row spacing with
Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha-1 at MWU and SARC, respectively. Total weed density, Total weed dry weight and
aboveground biomass were also significantly influenced by weed control methods. The lowest total weed
dry matter (5.5 g m-2) and (8.1 g m-2 ) was obtained at 15 cm row spacing with 0.5 lt ha-1 Pyroxsulam
treatments at MWU and SARC , respectively. Weed free treatment with 15 cm row spacing produced the
highest (12417.4 Kg ha-1) above ground biomass. The interaction effect of row spacing and herbicide rate
influenced broad leaf weed density, broad leaf dry matter, total and productive tillers, seed per spike, grain
yield and harvest index. The minimum broad leafed density (4, 6.1 m-2) was obtained at 15 and 20 cm row
spacing combined with 0.5 lt ha-1 pyroxsulam at MWU and SARC, respectively. The maximum weed control
efficiency 74, 68.3% were obtained with 15 and 20 cm row spacing respectively. The maximum productive
tiller (7.6 per plant) was obtained at 25 cm weed free treatment at SARC. While maximum (57) seed per
spike was recorded at 15 cm with Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha-1. The maximum grain yield (4985.7kg ha-1) was
obtained from plot treated with 15 cm with weed free plot and the maximum (40 %) harvest index was
recorded at 15 cm Pyroxsulam at 0.5lt ha-1. Regarding economic analysis the maximum (49246.5 Birr ha-1)
net benefit was obtained at combination of 15 cm row spacing and Pyroxsulam 0.5 ha -1. Thus, using of 15
cm row spacing with Pyroxsulam at 0.5lt ha-1 can tentatively be recommended. However, the experiment
has to be repeated with different methods of integrated weed management including herbicide
combinations for sustainable weed management in wheat.
Keywords: Critical period, Row spacing, Pyroxsulam rate, Weed competition.

xiii
 1. INTRODUCTION

Bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is an annual crop plant belonging to the family
Poaceae (grass family) and native to the Mediterranean region and southwest Asia
(Gibson and Benson, 2002). It is originated in south western Asia in the area known as
the Fertile Crescent, from where the crop spread to the rest of the world (Adebayo and
Ibraheem, 2015). The cultivation of wheat spread from its center of origin to India,
Pakistan, and China, Mediterranean countries and other European countries and
introduced to tropical Africa by Arab traders, missionaries and settlers, also 5000 years
ago wheat was brought to Ethiopia by the immigrants. It is one of the most important
cereals grown in the world, with China leading the ranking of producers, which is
insufficient to supply its domestic market (FAO, 2017). About one third of the world
population is based on wheat crop for protein and caloric requirements (Khan, 2003;
Montazeri et al., 2005). Wheat is an important staple food crop in the diets of several in
Ethiopian, providing about 15 % of the caloric intake for the country’s over 90 million
population especially, in rural and urban areas (Eyob et al., 2015).

In Ethiopia, wheat cultivated on about 1.6 million hectares of land with grain production
of 3.5 million tons, which make Ethiopia the second largest producer in Africa (CSA,
2016). It ranks the fourth in total cereals production (16 %) next to maize, sorghum and
teff, which is produced nearly by 5 million smallholder farmers, which makes about 31%
percent of all small farmers in the country (CSA, 2017). Studies revealed that, bread
wheat covers about 60% of the total wheat area from all 5% in 1967 and a 40% in 1991,
while durum wheat covers about 40% from an 85% in 1967 and a 60% in 1991 (Hailu et
al., 1991; Alemayehu et al., 2011).

The total production of wheat in the country was more than 4.63 million ton annually,
while it contributes out of total grain 13.49%, 15.63% area coverage and production,
respectively, with national average yield of 2.7 ton/hectare (CSA, 2018). Oromia Region
accounts for 59 % of production, and Arsi and Bale are the two largest wheat producing
zones in the region (Minot et al., 2015). In Oromia Region, 898,682.57 ha of land was

1
under this crop with a production of 2,669,917.7ton and 29.7Kg ha -1yield in Meher
season of 2017/18 (CSA, 2017). In the year of 2016/17 meher, in Bale Zone, wheat
ranked first with total area of 166,539.45 ha and of 550,35 ton production (CSA,
2016).Wheat productivity in Ethiopia is even much below that of Kenya and African
average by 29 and 13%, respectively (FAO, 2014). Hence, the average productivity of
wheat in Ethiopia is very low; about 2.7 ton ha-1 as which is much below that of the
world’s average about 3.39 ton ha-1 (USDA, 2019). Various biotic and a biotic factors
like cultivation of unimproved low yielding varieties, insufficient and erratic rainfall,
poor agronomic practices, diseases and insect pests are among the most important
constraints to wheat production and low productivity in Ethiopia (Dereje and Yaynu,
2000). This crisis has led the country to import wheat from abroad in order to feed its
nation still now. For instance, during 2017/18, Ethiopian Grain Trade Enterprise imported
1.8 million metric tons of wheat (Grain and Feed Annual Report, 2018).

Weed infestation is one of the major constraints in wheat production in Ethiopia,

especially during the rainy season. A yield loss of up to 37% was recorded on wheat field
that hasn’t received any weeding (MoA, 2011). Farmers in the country are aware of weed
problem in their fields but often they cannot cope-up with heavy weed infestation during
the peak-period of agricultural activities because of labor shortage as hand weeding is the
most dominant practice, hence, most of their fields are weeded late or left un-weeded.
Such ineffective weed management is considered as one of the main factors for low
average yield of bread wheat resulting in average annual yield loss that ranges from 45%
to 86% (Eshetu et al., 2006). The damage caused by weeds is multidimensional; it
reduces the yield and qualty of product by depleting crop’s environment of nutrient,
water and light. As indicated by Gupta (2004), yield reduction due to weeds is a result of
competition for mineral nutrients, moisture and space.

There are different methods of weed control which include manual weeding, mechanical
weeding, stale seed bed, intercropping and use of herbicides (Mohammad et al., 2001).
Wheat is infested with both grassy and broadleaf weeds and effective weed management
require an integrated approach using both chemical and non-chemical approaches

2
(Chhokar et al., 2012 and Singh, 2007). The combination of high sowing densities of
crops and low rates of herbicides is an effective weed management strategy for grasses
(Harker and Blackshaw, 2000).

Cultural practices, like adjusting row spacing and use of agro- chemicals are some of the
strategies for weed management. Increased competitive abilty of wheat is achieved by
reducing row space when moisture is not a limiting factor. In addition, close planting of
wheat through reducing row spacing can reduce weed infestation as compared with wide
row spacing (Sharma, 1995). This might be due to early growth of crop canopy which
suppressed the weed growth by shading coupled with efficient utilization of resources.
Narrow row widths can reduce the biomass of later emerging weeds by decreasing the
light available for weeds located below the crop canopy (Alegere et al., 2011). Besides,
Jena and Behera (1998) reported significant reduction in weed population and weed dry
matter as well as improvement in yield of wheat with closer row spacing of 15 cm.
Similarly, closer row spacing with 15 cm and increase in seed rate by 50% showed
significant effect on weed population and dry weight of weeds (Mongia et al., 2005).

Chemical weed control seems indispensable and has proved efficient in controlling weeds
(Kahramanoglu and Uygur, 2010) and hence about two-third by volume, of the pesticides
used worldwide in agricultural production are herbicides. Overall other weeds control
methods; chemical weed control method is preferred because it is quick, more effective
and relatively cheaper. On the other hand, Pyroxsulam was more effective on controlling
broadleaved weeds which reduced the weed population as compared to other herbicides
and also it can control serious grassy weeds on wheat (Muhammad et al., 2013).
Pyroxsulam (Trizolopyrimidne, Pyroxsulam ) on its efficiency and selectivity for post
emergence weed control in wheat showed 80 to 94% and 95 to 100% control of
broadleaved and grass weeds, by its interference with the enzyme acelolatate synthesis
(ALS), respectively, (Kemal et al., 2012).

The efficacy of any herbicide depends predominately on the dose used (Steckel et al.,
1997) and in many instances the same is decisive for its selectivity. Registered herbicide

3
doses are set to achieve upper limits of weed control under varying compositions,
densities, weed growth stages and environmental conditions, and there may be an
overestimation of the dose required to get adequate control (Zhang et al., 2000). Prakash
et al. (1986) found closer row spacing (15 cm) and reduced dose of herbicide effective in
reducing weeds and increasing grain yield. However, it is not always necessarily to apply
full herbicide dose (Talgre et al., 2008) and there can flexibilty regarding herbicide rates
depending on the weed spectrum, densities, their growth stage and environmental
conditions of the site. Moreover, modern weed science also emphasizes following an
ecological approach based on keeping weed populations below threshold levels rather
than eradicating them (Barroso et al., 2009). Numerous herbicide molecules at lower-
than-recommended rates are effective enough to provide satisfactory weed control
without sacrificing yields and increasing weed infestation in the following years (Zhang
et al., 2000; Boström and Fogelfors, 2002; Walker et al., 2002; Auskalnis and Kadzys,
2006; Barros et al., 2007). Reduced herbicide doses seem to offer a promising tool for
decreasing herbicide usage across the globe.

Herbicides, which can control both grass and broadleaved weeds along with cultural
practices, may be most economical and effective method of weed control method. Use of
ecologically safe herbicides not only protects crops but also save money and
environment. Moreover, sowing of wheat in closer row spacing may help in reducing the
herbicide dose, which can be effective, and economical weed management strategy and
the basis for a cost-effective, eco-friendly and sustainable weed management program.
Even wheat is highly produced in Bale Highland, weeds are a major problem, specialy
late emerging and high density of weeds in the area as farmers solely depend on herbicide
method. On this however, there have been limited research efforts that assessed the effect
of row spacing and herbicide application rate on weeds and the performance of wheat in
the study area. Therefore, this experiment was conducted with ojective
 To determine optimum row spacing and weed control method for wheat
production.

 To suggest profitable weed control options.

4
 2. REVIEW OF LTERATURE

2.1. Description and Origin of Wheat

Bread wheat is one of the major cereal crops produced worldwide. Wheat belongs to the
Poaceace family, genus Triticum and species aestivum. Bread wheat is a Hexaploid (6x),
which forms 21 pairs of chromosomes (2n = 21) during meiosis. Wheat at is the most
important food plant for one third of world’s population. Archeological evidences show
that carbonized wheat at Neolthic sites in Northern Iraq and Central and North Eastern
Europe date back 7500 BC to 6750 BC (Rao and Pandey, 2007). The origin of modern
wheat is expected to be at Karacadag mountain region which is currently southeastern
Turkey (Hrist, 2015). Currently, wheat is a crop with 25,000 cultivars cultivated in the
world today. The two common species of wheat are bread wheat (T. aestivum L.) and
durum wheat (T. turgidum L.) where 95% of consumed wheat is bread wheat (Hrist,
2015). Ethiopia is the center of diversity of wheat. Bread and durum wheat are types of
wheat produced but bread wheat is the major one grown in Ethiopia although farmers
grow both types mixed together (Grain and Feed Annual Report, 2013). Currently, wheat
is a crop with 25,000 cultivars cultivated in the world today. The two common species of
wheat are bread wheat (T. aestivum L.) and durum wheat (T. turgidum L.) where 95% of
consumed wheat is bread wheat (Hrist, 2015). Currently, in Ethiopia between 2013-2015
year 15 bread and durum wheat variety were released by the Ethiopian Institute of
Agricultural Research (MoA, 2016).

2.2. Ecology of Wheat

Wheat is mainly a highland crop that grown well in a wide range of climates from
tropical to temperate zones. It prefers a well- drained fertile loam and clay loams soils
whereas soils with clay loam or silt loam are the best for wheat cultivation because wheat
is sensitive to water logging, but soils should be neutral in reaction and heavy soils with
good drainage are suitable for wheat cultivation under dry condition (Habtamu et al.,
2012). The annual rainfall for wheat is 500-1200 mm, which requires medium (50–60%)

5
humidity for their growth, but at the time of maturity, crop requires less humidity and
warm season and the optimum temperature for wheat is 20-25oC for germination, 16-
20oC for tillering and 20-23oC for proper development (Eyob et al., 2015).

In Ethiopia, both the bread and durum wheat are widely cultivated in the highlands of the
country, which ranging between 6 and 16°N and 35 and 42° E, at altitudes ranging from
1500 to 3000 meters above sea level and with mean minimum temperatures of 6°C to
11°C (Samuel et al., 2017). According to USAID (2010) country report, wheat is mainly
grown in the central and southeastern highlands (Arsi, Bale and parts of Shoa are
considered the wheat growing belt) during the main (Meher) rainy season (June to
September) and harvested in October-November. Mostly both wheat varieties in country
are produced under rain-fed conditions, predominantly by small farmers and a few
governments owned large-scale (State) farms and commercial farms produce wheat
(ICARDA, 2016).

2.3. Importance of Wheat

Wheat is mainly used as human food. It is a major ingredient of breads, rolls, crackers,
cookies, biscuits, cakes, doughnuts, muffins, pancakes, waffles, noodles, piecrusts, ice
cream cones, macaroni, spaghetti, puddings, pizza, and many prepared hot and cold
breakfast foods. Wheat supplies about 20% of food calories for world population. The
byproduct of wheat is useful for livestock and poultry feed and the straw may be used for
newsprint, paper board and other products (Gibson and Benson, 2008). In Ethiopia, wheat
grain is used for preparation of food and local beverages, like the traditional staple
pancake (“injera”), bread (“dabo”), local beer (“tella”), and several other local food
items (i.e., "dabokolo", "ganfo", "kinche”, “ atimit”, “kita”, “qollo”, “nifro”) and its straw
is used for roof thatching.

At present, it is the smallholder farmers (4.5 million holders on 1,426,000 ha) that
produce most of the wheat production in Ethiopia comparing to the 8% contribution of
the large state-owned farmers (124,000 ha of land). The production of wheat in the

6
country is very insufficient to meet the increasing demand for food for the ever-
increasing population that is Ethiopia’s wheat production self sufficiency is only 75% and
the remaining 25% wheat is imported commercially and through food aid (GAIN, 2014).
It has versatile uses in making various human foods, such as bread, biscuits, cakes,
sandwich, etc. Additionally, wheat straw is commonly used as a roof thatching material
and as animal feed (GAIN, 2014). Wheat is mainly used as human food. It is a major
ingredient of breads, rolls, crackers, cookies, biscuits, cakes, doughnuts, muffins,
pancakes, waffles, noodles, piecrusts, ice cream cones, macaroni, spaghetti, puddings,
pizza, and many prepared hot and cold breakfast foods. Wheat supplies about 20% of
food calories for world population. The byproducts of wheat are useful for livestock and
poultry feed and the straw may be used for newsprint, paper board and other products
(Gibson and Benson, 2008).

2.4. Economic Importance of Weeds

Weeds are unwanted, prolific and competitive plants, which interfere with agricultural
operations and reduce potential yield of crops. Weeds are competitive to all adverse
environments. They cause 5% loss in agricultural production in developed countries and
25% loss in least developed countries (Balasubramaniyan and Palanippan, 2007). There
is significant yield loss of wheat due to weeds. For instance, the yield loss due to weeds
in Pakistan ranged from 18 to 30% (Ashirq and Cheema, 2005) and 37 to 50% in
worldwide (Waheed et al., 2009). In Ethiopia, a yield loss of above 36.3% was recorded
in wheat in uncontrolled plots (Rezene, 2005). Bromus pectinatus and Snowdenia
polystachya are weed species that recently became prominent in the affected cropping
systems in Ethiopia due to a weed population shift, attributed primarily to continuous
cereal cropping and frequent use of selective herbicides against previously common grass
weeds, such as Avena fatua (Tanner and Giref, 1991; Amanuel et al., 1992; Rezene and
Yohannes, 2003).

Weed infestation is one of the major important a biotic constraint in wheat production.
Wheat is infested by diverse types of weed flora as it grown in diverse agro climatic

7
conditions (Chhokar et al., 2013). Weeds are one of the major constraints in wheat
production by providing habitats for pathogens and insect pests. It is known that weed
competition throughout the world is greater than from the combined effect of diseases
and pests where the loss ranges from 10 to 65 % (Tesfaye, 2014). Weeds also have an
allelopathic effect and can reduce quantity and qualty of the wheat crop. Weeds increases
productions cost and intensify diseases and pest problems as alternative hosts (Marwat et
al., 2008).

2.5. Crop-Weed Competition

In crop-weed-crop competition studies, the knowledge of critical periods of weed

competition may help to determine the potential effectiveness of competitive cultivars
and help producers to develop and implement appropriate weed control measures to
minimize yield losses in crops (Zimdahl, 2004). Competition is an important ecological
process both in natural and agricultural plant communities. Above ground competition is
mainly described as shoot competition where shoots of competing species compete for
light and CO2 while belowground competition involves roots of different species growing
in the same volume of soil competing for nutrients, space, oxygen and water (Casper and
Jackson, 1997). Crop–weed competition information can provide valuable information to
farmers and land managers on whether weed control is warranted, and if so, what is the
optimal timing to implement weed control practices (Clarence et al., 2015). The effect of
weed competition on crop yield is driven by two major variables. The most important
variable to record in any competition study is the time of weed emergence relative to the
crop and weed seedling density (Kropff and Spitters 1991).

2.5.1. Critical period of competition

Critical period of weed competition (CPWC) is a period in the crop growth cycle during
which weeds must be controlled to prevent yield loss (Knezevic et al., 2000). Swanton
and Weise (1991) defined CPWC as time when it is essential to maintain a weed free
environment to prevent yield loss. The critical period of weed competition for wheat has

8
been suggested at 2 to 4 weeks after crop emergence (MoA, 2011). Two or three hand
weeding gave the best result in most part of the country. It was recommended that the
first hand weeding should be performed 25-30 days after planting and the second 50- 60
days after crop emergence (MoA, 2011). In Ethiopia, weeding was not take place at
optimum stage due to overlapping activities, thus, during that time weed damage is
aggravated (Hailu, 2003). Ineffective weed management is considered as the major
factor, which leads to annual yield loss of 35% in wheat in Ethiopia (Eshetu et al., 2006).
The importance of knowing CWFP is to make the right decision on the need and time for
weed management in efficient and economical way.

2.5.2. Competition for growth factors

A weed absorbs mineral nutrients faster than other plants and accumulates more nutrients
in their tissue than crop plants. Weeds deprive crops 47% nitrogen, 42% phosphorus,
50% potassium, 39% calcium and 24% magnesium of their nutrient uptake
(Balasubramaniyan and Palanippan, 2007). This shows that weeds utilize much amount
of macronutrients, which, in turn, affects biomass accumulation and yield of crops.
Weeds are more responsive to fertilizers, which lead to huge loss of nutrients in each crop
season. Amaranthus spp accumulated nitrogen about 3.16% on dry weight basis when
compared to wheat, which is 1.33% and termed as “nitrophills”. Chenopodium
accumulates K2O at 4.34 % on dry matter basis when compared to wheat (1.44%)
(Chandrasekhar et al., 2010).

Weeds compete with crops for light, moisture, nutrients and space with crops so that they
can suppress the growth of the crop, which, in turn, affect the yield. Wheat is a very
sensitive crop to weed competition. It is affected by annual weeds during early growth
stage. Grass species like wild oats (Avena fatua) are difficult to control than broadleaved
species since they noxious nature due to their similarity in morphology with wheat (MoA,
2011).

9
Water is one of the important factors in plant growth and function of plants. It is one of
the components in metabolic reaction in plants. To produce biomass, transpiration occurs
in plants. Since weeds have a tendency to produce more biomass they transpire more
water than crops. For instance, Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon L.) has twice
transpiration rate as pearl millet (Chandrasekhar et al., 2010). Therefore, competition
between crops and weeds reduces soil water availabilty which causes reduction in growth
in both crop and weed (Radosovosh et al., 1997). According to Chandrasekhar et al.,
(2010), Soil moisture may be exhausted in weedy fields by the time crop reaches fruiting
stages which means that water shortage at this stage can cause significant loss in yield of
crops.

Photosynthesis is one of the major determinants for biomass determination. Light plays a
major role in photosynthesis. When weeds emerge earlier and shade crops out, they
reduce penetration of light to the crop, which in turn reduces their photosynthesis
efficiency. Similarly Cudney et al., (1991) reported that wild oat (Avena fatua) reduces
the light penetration and growth by growing taller than wheat plants.

2.5.3. Yield losses due to weeds

Weeds compete with crop for light, nutrient, space, water and ultimately reduce the crop
yield and qualty (Qasim and Foy, 2001; Gupta, 2004). Weeds also have allelopathic
effect on crop and reduce its quantity and qualty (Gupta, 2004). Sometimes, it results in
complete crop failure (Zand et al., 2007). If these weed plants are not controlled before
the critical period of crop-weed competition, then losses in crop yield are expected to be
very high. So, in order to obtain an economic yield, weeds must be controlled very
effectively and also at appropriate time. Hence, yield losses caused by weeds in wheat
depend on the infesting weed type, its intensity, and agronomic practices adopted in
wheat cultivation (Singh, 2007). Herbicide resistance is the major cause of yield loss as
continuous use of herbicides of same site of action resulted in multiple herbicide
resistance (Singh et al., 2009). In Ethiopia, a yield loss of above 36.3% was recorded in
wheat in uncontrolled plots (Rezene, 2005). Similarly, in a study of Avena abyssinica,

10
Lolium temulentum L., Snowdenia polystachya and Phalaris paradoxa L. with bread
wheat, yield losses of 48-86% were recorded by the maximum weed density of 320 weed
seedlings per m2 (Taye et al., 1996).

2.6. Weed Management in Wheat

2.6.1. Preventive and cultural methods

Prevention is inhibition of weed establishment in areas that are not already infested by
weeds. Prevention includes using of clean seeds for sowing. Chhokar et al., (2013)
reported that contaminated seeds are the major factors for the dispersal of weed seeds.
Cultural practices include crop rotation, choice of crop varieties, intercropping and row
spacing (Balasubramaniyan and Palanippan, 2007). Crop rotation is one of the important
components in integrated weed management. Many weeds are associated with other crop
due to their similarity in morphology. By changing the ecological requirement of
associated weed, weeds will be suppressed. Crop rotation also allows different herbicides
with different mode of actions so helps in reducing herbicide resistance of weeds (Singh
et al., 2013). Moreover, intercropping has an impact in suppressing weeds because it does
not give enough space for weeds to germinate and grow. In an experiment conducted on
cropping system showed that, there was significantly low weed dry weight in cropping
systems wheat + gram, wheat + lentil and wheat + pea as compared with pure stand of
wheat (Saini et al., 2014).

To fully exploit the potential of improved varieties and available natural and
environmental resources, optimum agronomic practices like planting pattern, weeding
frequency and weed management aspects are crucial as an improved variety alone cannot
give maximum yield (IAR, 1987). However, crop variety plays an important role in crop
weed competition because of morphological features, canopy size and relative growth
rate (Singh et al., 2013). An ideal cultivar should have rapid seed emergence, high
seedling growth, and rapid leaf area expansion, and dense canopy maintained overtime,
rapid canopy closure, tall height and intermediate growth habit. On the other hand,

11
increased competitive abilty of wheat can be achieved by increasing plant population or
reducing row spacing, which smoothes weeds. As row spacing increased, the weed
suppression efficiency decreases and the weed dry weight increases. This is to because in
wider spatial arrangements weeds were not suppressed effectively by crop plants and thus
weeds grow freely resulting in higher weed dry weight and lower weed control (Saini et
al .,2014).

2.6.2. Mechanical methods

Mechanical methods involve the removal of weeds by various tools and implements
including hand weeding. Manual weeding is effective but requires considerable amount
of man power and time and difficult to manage weeds that resembles the crop
morphologically. According to Singh, (2013) manual weeding is less effective under
heavy soil than under light and grass infestation but it is efficient in light soils. Hand
weeding is the most common weed management method used by small-scale farmers. It
usually requires no capital outlay. It is intensive and slow as compared to other control
weed management methods (Kebede, 2002). Therefore, proper timing of hand weeding is
necessary to effectively manage weeds as well as to reduce labor and time.

2.6.3. Chemical methods

Numerous approaches have been in practice for handling the problem of weed infestation
of which chemical weed control seems indispensable and has proved efficient in
controlling weeds (Kahramanoglu and Uygur, 2010), and hence currently about two-
third, by volume, of the pesticides used worldwide in agricultural production are
herbicides. Chemical methods are preferred to other control management is because of its
cost and time efficiency and it reduces the mechanical damage to the crop when used
with mechanical method but some weed species may escape because of their
morphological similarity to crops. Effective weed management depends on the proper
selection of herbicides depending on the type of weed flora infesting the crop and at
optimum doses and time using proper technology (Chhokar et al., 2013).

12
Herbicides allow greater flexibilty in the choice of management systems, less reliance on
crop rotation pattern, tillage implements and timings and fallow periods, allow greater
selection of crops and management options and mechanical damage to crops can be
reduced (Radosebvich ,1997). Holt (1992) stated that herbicides can kill weeds, which
survive due to mimicry (weeds that have morphological similar its escape physical
methods of control) and easy to use on spiny weeds. On the other hand, weed species
tend to vary in their susceptibilty to different doses of a specific herbicide. Zhang et al.
(2000) showed use of reduced herbicide doses and concluded that weed control efficiency
tends to be lower and more erratic at reduced doses than at recommended doses, although
it was commercially acceptable (60-100%) in most cases.

Weed infestations reflect the ecological consequences of crop management practices in

previous years (Thomas & Dale 1991). Research indicates that there is good potential to
reduce both herbicide dose and the number of herbicide applications when they are
utilized within competitive cropping systems. Weed populations are reduced over time
and existing weeds are suppressed in those systems employing good agronomic practices
and competitive crops. Herbicide coverage, uptake, and efficacy can be greater with low
weed densities compared with high weed densities (Winkle et al. 1981). Indeed, reduced
doses of tralkoxydim (Belles et al. 2000) or imazametha benz (Wille et al. 1998) were
more efficacious at low wild oat densities than at high wild oat densities. Diele- man et
al. (1999) also reported that herbicide efficacy on velvetleaf and common sunflower
(Helianthus annuus L.) was greater at low than at high weed densities. Thus, any crop
production practise that reduces weed populations over time is important to the successful
use of reduced herbicide doses.

2.6.3.1. Effect of chemical control on yield components and yield

Experiments showed that herbicide type as well as herbicide doses showed significant
effects on the total and productive tillers. Ashenafi and Dawit (2014) reported that
Pyroxsulam treated plots at 0.5 lt ha-1 gave maximum number of tillers, followed by
combination of Pyroxsulam with 2, 4-D. Maximum productive and total tillers were

13
recorded in complete weed free plots and two times hand weeding but there was no
significant difference with Pyroxsulam 20 g ha-1 + 2, 4- DEE, but among herbicides types
Pyroxsulam at 20 g ha-1 gave better result (Dawit et al., 2014). Regarding grains per spike
Pyroxsulam at 40 g ha-1 has produced (36.78) next to combination of Isoproturon and
Diflufencian (48.44) and Isoproturon (43.67) (El-Metwally et al., 2015). Dawit et al.,
(2014b) also reported that Pyroxsulam has an effect on the number of grains per spike
although hand weeding showed better result, Pyroxsulam at 20 g ha-1 and Pyroxsulam at
25 g ha-1 showed the highest grains per spike next to weed free and two times hand
weeding. There was no significant difference between Pyroxsulam at 25 g ha -1 and two
times hand weeding. Regarding thousand grain weight, the highest thousand grain weight
was recorded at Pyroxsulam 40 g ha-1 (35.05 g) next to combination of Isoproturon and
Diflufenican (36.76 g) (El_Metwally et al., 2015). Similarly, Dawit et al., (2014b)
reported that the highest thousand kernel weight was recorded in weed free plot and
among the herbicide combinations, Pyroxsulam at 20 g ha-1 + 2,4- DEE 0.5 kg ha-1 ha-1
and Isoproton 0.75 kg ha-1 + 2,4- DEE 0.5 kg ha-1 showed better result next to weed free
plot. Similarly, Dawit (2016) obtained the highest thousand grain weight at Pyrosxulam
10 g ha-1 + 2, 4- DEE 0.5 kg ha-1 and 110 kg N ha-1. The maximum (4161 kg ha-1) grain
yield was obtained at Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha-1 treated plots, followed by combination of
Pyroxsulam and 2, 4- DEE at 0.25 kg ha-1 and 1 kg ha-1 respectively (Ashenafi and
Dawit, 2014b). Among the doses of Pyroxsulam the higher yield was recorded at 20 g ha -
1
followed by Pyroxsulam, 25 g ha-1 gave 4479 kg ha-1 , while that of 20 g ha-1 gave 4500
kg ha-1 but there was no significant difference between the treatments (Dawit et al.,
2014b). Luchia et al., (2017) reported that front line demonstration of herbicide
conducted in Tigray Region in four districts showed that Pyroxsulam treated plots at a
rate of 0.5 l/ha resulted in increment of yield by 32.39, 51.18, 42.22 and 48.03% in
Hintalo- Wajirat, Enderta, Saesie Tsaeda –Emba and Glomahda respectively when
compared with hand weeding treated plots.

14
2.6.3.2. Effect of chemical control on weeds

Pyroxsulam showed significant effect on weed density. Although the dose varies with
different experiments, Pyroxsulam results lower weed density alone and with
combination of other herbicides. Ashenafi and Dawit (2014) recorded the minimum weed
density with weed control efficiency (WCE) of 84.4% obtained with Pyroxsulam at the
rate of 0.5lt ha-1 in wheat. Similarly, El_Metwally et al; (2015) obtained the highest
significant (91.4%) weed dry weight reduction was recorded at Pyroxsulam at a rate of 40
g ha-1 next to combination of Isoproturon + Diflufenican followed by (93.4%).
Pyroxsulam is also effective in suppressing weeds combined with other herbicides.
Pyroxsulam is also effective in suppressing weeds combined with other herbicides. It is
reported that combination of Pyroxsulam at 20 g ha-1 and 2, 4- DEE 0.4 kg ha-1 has
resulted in the lowest total weed density in wheat and there was no significant difference
with 25 g ha-1 Pyroxsulam (Dawit et al., 2014b). The lowest grass weed density was
recorded with the combination of Pyroxsulam 10 g ha-1 + 2, 4-DEE0.50 kg ha-1with 110
kg N ha-1at but no significant difference with the combination of Pyroxsulam at 20 g ha-
1 applied with all the N application rates (Dawit, 2016). This indicates that Pyroxsulam
controls weeds with similar efficiency when compared with combined herbicides.
Combination of other types of herbicides also has significant effect on weeds. Nano et al.,
(2016) reported that interaction between Isoprotoun and 24 DEE at a rate of 1 and 0.5 kg
ha-1 with 120 kg N respectively resulted in the lowest broad leaf weed density. Another
experiment showed that the ready mix of Metsulfron + Carfentrozone controlled Rumex
spinousus L. More than the application of these herbicides sole application of these
herbicides (Singh, 2013). For control of complex weed flora with herbicides combination
of herbicides is effective in controlling weeds.

2.6.3.3. Reduced dose establishment in herbicide use

The establishment of competitive cropping systems will faciltate the use of lower
herbicide doses with consideration of other factors to decide the use of reduced herbicide
doses. Progress continues to be made on maintaining high efficacy levels at lower

15
herbicide doses through the use of improved adjuvant that increase solubilty in the spray
tank and aid in herbicide uptake and translocation (Ramsey et al., 2005). Additionally,
advances in spray nozzle technology might further increase the efficacy of herbicides
applied at lower doses (Wolf et al., 2000; Milne et al., 2004). Air temperature, soil
moisture and relative humidity all have been reported to affect herbicide efficacy
(Akesson and Yates 1987; Kudsk and Kristensen, 1992) and the importance of these
factors only increases with reduced herbicide doses (Medd et al. 2001). Indeed, many
herbicide labels indicate the importance of “favorable environmental conditions” or
“actively growing weeds” when applying herbicides (Ali 2004). Precision farming might
have a role to play in enabling reduced herbicide doses. Identifying where weeds occur in
a field and the density of those weeds should aid in any decision on the most appropriate
herbicide dose (Shaw 2005; Wiles 2005). Reduced herbicide doses would not be
considered for dense weed patches or for large weeds.

Considerable research has examined the potential use of lower-than-labeled herbicide

doses (Zoschke 1994; Zhang et al. 2000). The results have been somewhat mixed and
there is a wide range of opinions on the benefits and risks associated with such use. Some
researchers reported that weed biomass decreased and grain yield increased as crop
density increased (Eslami et al., 2006; Olsen and Weiner, 2005). At the same time, it was
hypothesized that increased crop density can partially reduce herbicide application rate.
Increasing crop density has been cited as a means to faciltate reduced herbicide use
(Nazarko et al., 2005; Blackshaw et al., 2005). Walker et al. (2002) observed that
maximum wheat yield and reduction in seed production of Avena ludoviciana was
achieved with approximately 130 wheat plants m-2 and weeds treated with herbicide at
75% of recommended rate. Alternatively, this benefit was achieved by increasing wheat
density to 150 plants m-2 applied with 50% herbicide rate (Walker et al., 2002).

2.7. Row spacing in Weed Management

Proper row spacing is another most important management factor affecting the
agronomic characteristics of wheat and weed infestation (Marwat et al., 2002). Narrow

16
row spacing produces high leaf area index, which results in more interception of photo-
synthetically active radiation and dry matter accumulation (Ashrafi et al., 2009). Planting
pattern such as closer row sowing (15 cm) or bi-directional sowing (22.5 cm × 22.5 cm)
modified wheat canopy structure and thus increased the weed smothering potential of the
crop (Walia et al., 2007). Thus, planting of crops at narrow row spacing increases crop
population which increases competition between crop and weeds where the crop plants
have shading effect on the weeds and suppress the weed growth (Ayoub and Elhag,
2014). Indeed, growth and development of weeds can be suppressed by using narrower
row spacing. Closely spaced crop provides good smothering potential on growth and
development of weeds due to less availabilty of space for growth and development, and
also well distribution of seedlings per unit area, thereby competing for nutrients and
moisture better than the weeds do. A crop’s abilty to suppress weeds can be enhanced if it
is able to pre-empt limiting resources by acquiring them earlier in the growing season or
sequestering them in the form of more crop plants per unit area (Page and Willenborg,
2013).

Row spacing has an effect on weed density. Adjusting row spacing is one of cultural
methods of weed management measures. The competitive abilty of wheat with weeds can
be increased by increasing seed rate or reducing row spacing because it smoothers weeds
by early canopy coverage. Narrow row spacing can improve weed management because
weeds are smaller and more easily suppressed with herbicides than in wide row spacing
(Mongia et al., 2005). Dawit et al. (2014a) reported that lowest grass and broadleaved
density was recorded at 15 cm spacing, while the highest total weed density was recorded
at 25 cm row spacing. A similar result was obtained on weed control efficiency (WCE),
where the maximum (83.4%) weed control efficiency was recorded at 15 cm row spacing
with isoprotoun (1.5 kg ha-1). However, Hozayn et al. (2012) reported that the treatment
with 20 cm row spacing and twice weeding suppressed weeds by 48.5% in wheat. At
wider spacing, the smothering effect was lower than with narrow spacing. The highest
weed density of both broad and grassy weeds was recorded at 25 cm row spacing as
compared with 15 cm row spacing (Dawit et al., 2014a). Similarly, Saini et al. (2014)
showed that wider spacing of 22.5 cm and 30 cm resulted in significantly higher weed

17
dry matter over narrow spacing of 15 cm row spacing since in wider spacing weeds are
not suppressed effectively by crop plants.

Row spacing has an effect on yield and yield components of wheat. Regarding the
number of tillers, different results are reported, row spacing has significant effect on the
number of tillers where the highest number of tillers was obtained at 15 cm row spacing
with complete weed free and hand weeding at 2 and 4 WAE (weeks after emergence) but
the interaction between row spacing and frequency of weeding was significant, while the
lowest number of tiller was at 25 cm and weedy check (Dawit et al., 2014a). Yadav and
Choudhary (2015) also reported that among the spacing, narrow spacing of 17.5 cm
produced more tillers than 20 and 22.5 cm row spacing due to more uniform spatial
distribution and less plant competition than wide spacing. However, Saini et al. (2014)
reported that 15 cm row spacing produced lower number of effective tillers but there was
no significant difference between 22.5 and 30 cm row spacing. Similarly, Pandey et al.,
(2013) reported that 20 cm row spacing produced more number of effective tillers
compared to 15 and 25 cm. On the other hand, Rahel and Fikadu (2016) reported that no
significant difference on total and effective number of tillers among 20, 25 and 30 cm
row spacing. These results are in consonance with the findings of Iqbal (2010) and Ali et
al.(2016) who observed that narrow row spacing increased number of tillers per unit area
significantly over wider row spacing. This could be due to the availabilty of ample
resources required by the wheat crop for growth and development and there is presence
of more free space between plants that are used to avoid competition between plants in
the lower seeding rate rather than the higher seeding rate. Dawit et al. (2014a) reported
the highest number of grains per spike at 15 cm row spacing with completely weed free
plot and no significant difference between 20 and 25 cm row spacing with completely
weed free plot. On the other hand, Saini et al. (2014) reported that row spacing of 15 cm
produced lower number of grain per spike than 22.5 and 30 cm row spacing. The
maximum thousand grain weights were recorded at 25 cm with completely weed free
(Dawit et al., 2014a). Rahel and Fikadu (2016) also reported that thousand grain weights
were not influenced by row spacing and the interaction effect of seed rate and row

18
spacing. Similarly, Pandey et al. (2013) obtained no significant effect of row spacing in
kernel number per spike and thousand grain weights.

It was reported that the highest grain yield of wheat was recorded at 20 cm row spacing
with completely weed free plot, while the lowest grain yield was recorded was at 25 cm
row spacing with weedy check (Dawit et al., 2014a). The result observed by Hozayn et
al. (2012) shows that highest grain yield is obtained from the treatment, which included
20 cm row spacing, east west crop row direction and hand weeding twice. In contrast,
Pandey et al. (2013) obtained no significant difference between row spacing among 7.5,
15, 22.5 and 30 cm and the results contradicts with finding of Din et al. (2017) who
obtained the maximum (4888 kg ha-1) grain yield at 15 cm, followed by at 20 cm row and
the minimum (2019 kg ha-1) grain yield was recorded at 40 cm row spacing. Nanda and
Patro (1996) found that 15.0 cm row spacing recorded significantly lower weed
population and weed dry weight and higher wheat grain yield over 20.0 cm row spacing.
It is important that plants utilize the available resourcefully and yield is maximized. The
narrow row spacing of 18.0 cm consistently produced the higher wheat yield as compared
to wider row spacing of 24.0 cm and 36.0 cm (Mohammad and Wal, 2003). A similar
result was observed in spring wheat (T. aestivum) which accumulated greater biomass at
a faster rate under the close row spacing (15.0 cm) than wider row spacing (30.0 cm),
resulting in higher grain production (Chengi et al., 2008). This difference in dry matter
accumulation might be due to the fact that, dry matter is interrelated with plant height and
number of tillers per unit area and the tillers count m-2 was higher under 20 cm row
spacing. According to Mali and Choudhary (2011) who reported that among the different
row spacing 15, 17.5, 20 and 22.5 cm the 20 cm row spacing recorded the highest dry
matter. Significantly, higher LAI was observed with 20 cm row spacing than 30 cm. Leaf
area index increased under narrower row spacing. This was mainly due to increase in
number of tillers per unit area as well as increase in number of leaves per plant Kalpana
et al. (2014) who reported that different row spacing had significant influence on LAI.

19
2.8. Weed Flora in Wheat

Weed flora distribution of wheat have been surveyed in different locations. The most
frequent and dominant are broad leaf weeds include; Guizotia scabra L., Galinsoga
parviflora L., Chenopodium spp L., Galium spurium L., Amaranthus hybridus L.,
Polygonum nepalense L. and among the grass weeds are Avena fatua L., Snowdenia
polystachya L., Setaria pumila L., Bromus pectinatus L., Phalaris paradoxa L. are
important in wheat fields (Rezene et al., 2008).

20
 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Description of the Experimental Site

Field experiments were conducted during 2018/2019 cropping at testing site of Mada
Walabu University Main Campas (MWU) and Sinana Agricultural Research Center
(SARC) station. The approximate geographical coordinates of MWU is 7°8 '30.2" N
latitude and 39° 59’53.3‫ ״‬E longitude having an altitude of 2460 m.a.s.l. SARC site is
situated at 07°07’ N latitude and 40°10’ E longitude of 2400 m.a.s.l. Both sites are
located in highlands of Bale zone in Oromiya region and receiving high rainfall annually
with bimodal rainfall types. There are two growing seasons locally called Bona and Gana
based on the time of crop harvest. Bona extends from August to December whereas Gana
from March to July.

3.2. Treatments and Experimental Design

Treatments consisted factorial combination of three row spacing (15, 20 and 25 cm) and
five weed control methods (0.5 lt/ha, 0.375 lt/ha, 0.25 lt/ha pyroxsulam, weedy check and
weed free check). Pyroxsulam rate was established based on 0.5 lt/ha with 100%, 75%
and 50% dose to respective rate indicated above. Total of fifteen treatments combinations
were used in the experiment.

The treatments were laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three
replications. The gross plot size was 6 m x 2 m with total gross area of 12 m 2. Bread
wheat variety ‘Danda’a’ which was released by Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center
in 2010 was used as a test crop. The variety takes 110-145 days to maturity and has grain
yield potential ranging from 3.5-7 ton/ha (MoARD, 2016). Planting was carried by
drilling seeds in rows at row spacing 15, 20 and 25 cm as per treatment arrangements in
their respective blocks. A herbicide Pyroxsulam 45 g /lt was used at different rates in
variable row spacing with weedy check and weed free combinations. The amount of
herbicide as per the treatment was calculated and measured from registered dose to lt/ha

21
was converted to the plot size for the treatment at the same time. The different herbicide
rates were applied as per the treatment in the assigned plots at tillering stage of wheat 4 to
5 leaves stage (25 DAE) Pyroxsulam 0.25 lt ha -1, 0.375 lt ha-1 and 0.5 lt ha-1). Spraying
was done with a manually operated Knapsack sprayer (15 L capacity) using flat-fan
nozzle. Hand weeding as per the treatment was done in the assigned plots at an
appropriate time. The weeds in weed free plots were removed by hand frequently to keep
the plots free of weeds during crop growing period.

3.3. Agronomic Practice

Experimental field was ploughed, pulverized and leveled in order to get smooth seed bed.
The recommended dose of NPS at the rate 100 kg/ha was applied at planting whereas
nitrogen at rate of 150 kg/ha was applied in splt with first half at planting and the
remaining second half at tillering stage. Diseases and insect damage were visually
monitored during the crop growing season. The crop was harvested manually at harvest
maturity.

3.4. Data Collection and Measurements

3.4.1. Soil data

A composite soil sample at a depth of 0-30 cm was taken from five randomly selected
spots diagonally across the experimental field using auger before planting. Then the
collected soil samples was air dried, grounded, sieved and analyzed in the soil laboratory
of Horti Coop Debre Zeyit for selected physio-chemical properties mainly organic matter,
total N, soil pH, available phosphorus, cation exchangeable capacity (CEC) and textural
analysis using standard laboratory procedures. Organic carbon content was determined by
the oxidation of organic carbon with acid potassium di-chromate (K 2Cr2O7) medium
using the Walkley and Black method as described by (Dewis and Freitas 1970). Total
nitrogen was analyzed by Micro-Kjeldhal method (Jackson, 1958). The pH of the soil
was determined in 1:2.5 (weight/ volume) soil to water dilution ratio using a glass

22
electrode attached to digital pH meter. Cation exchange capacity was measured after
saturating the soil with 1N ammonium acetate (NH4OAC) and displacing it with 1N
NaOAC (Chapman, 1965). Available phosphorus was determined using the Olsen
method (Olsen et al., 1954).

3.4.2. Weed data

.
Weed population: The weed flora present in the experimental field was recorded from
weedy check plots by placing a quadrat (0.25 m × 0.25 m) randomly at two spots in each
replication. The weeds were classified according to their families. This was done
frequently to look for the late emerging weeds also.
Weed density: - Weed data was collected from each plot by using quadrat (0.25 m × 0.25
m) thrown randomly at two places. The weed from the quadrat was counted and
categorized (broadleaved, grass and sedges). Weed density count was taken randomly
from each treated and untreated plots before herbicide application and five weeks after
each application by clipping all plants from two 0.25 m x 0.25 m quadrats and the density
from treated plots compared with the untreated plots.
Weed dry biomass: Samples to record aboveground weed dry biomass was collected
from the same area as in case of weed density at the time of recording data on weed
density. After two or three days of drying in sun, the samples were oven dried at 65 oC to
a constant weight and its oven dry weight was determined. Weed density and dry weight
were subjected to square root transformation where is the original value to
ensure normalty before analysis.
Weed Control Efficiency (WCE): It was calculated by using formula suggested by
Auskalnis and Kadzys (2006). Weed population and total above ground weed dry matter
was recorded the weed control efficiency (WCE) was determined by the formula:-

Where WDC = Weed dry mass from control plot (untreated) WDT = Weed dry matter
from treated plot.

23
3.4.3. Crop data

3.4.3.1. Phenological data

Days to heading: The number of days from planting to the first flower appears on any
plant in a plot at 75% of plant flowering.
Days to 90 physological maturity:- Days to physiological maturity was recorded by
counting the number of days from date of sowing until when 90% of the plants changed
green color to yellowish, loose its water content and attain to physiological maturity in
each plot.

3.4.3.2. Growth parameters

Plant height: The average height of ten randomly selected plants from the net plot area
of each plot was measured in centimeters from the ground to the top of spike, excluding
awns at maturity and means were taken. It was recorded as the average of ten randomly
selected main tillers from each plot at physiological maturity.
Spike length (cm):- Ten spikes were randomly selected from plants of the net plot area
in centimeter and the mean length were recorded on each plot by measuring from the
base to the upper most part of the spike excluding awns at maturity.

3.4.3.3. Yield components

Number of effective tillers per plant: The plants were selected randomly at different
places in each plot. Later on, the numbers of tillers were counted at maturity from each
such selected place and their average was taken for calculation.
Number of seed per spike:- Number of kernels per spike was counted from ten
randomly selected plants from the inner rows of each plot and the mean kernel number
was taken at harvesting.
Grain yield (kg/ha): After threshing, grains and straw were separated and weighed.
Grain yield (kg) was recorded from each net plot area. The moisture content of the grain
was determined for each plot and adjusted at 12.5%.

24
Above Ground Dry Biomass Yield (Kg ha-1): Total biomass or biological yield was
measured by weighing the sun dried total above ground plant biomass (straw + grain)
from the net plot area of each plot.

Where, M is the measured moisture content in grain and D is the designated moisture content.
Thousand seed weight (g): 1000 grains were counted from the recorded grains of each
net polt area and their weights were measured with sensitive balance. Then after adjusted
at 12.5%.
Harvest index (%): Of each plot were computed in each replication using the following
formula as.

Yield loss (%): The loss in seed yield was determined as a percentage of the difference
between weeded plots (complete weed free) and un-weeded plot (weedy check) using the
formula as described by

Where, YL=Yield loss, Y1= Yield in complete weed free (CWF), Y2= Yield in a
particular treatment.

3.5. Economic Analysis

The partial budget analysis as described by CIMMYT (1988) was made to determine the
economic feasibilty of the weed management practices. Economic analysis was done
using the prevailing market prices for inputs at planting and for the outputs at the time of
crop harvest. It was calculated by taking into account the additional input and lobar cost
involved and the gross benefits obtained from weed management practices. Average yield
was adjusted downward by 10% to reflect the difference between the experimental yield
and the yield farmers could obtain from the same weed management practices as
described by CIMMYT (1988). The field price of bread wheat was calculated as (sale
price minus the costs of harvesting, threshing, winnowing, bagging and transportation).
The total cost that varied included the sum of herbicide rate and labor cost where

25
spraying chemical required. The net benefit was calculated as the difference between the
gross field benefit (ETB ha-1) and the total costs (ETB ha-1) that varied.

3.6. Statistical Analysis

Data collected were subjected to analysis of variance using GLM procedure using SAS
statical program version 9.1 (SAS Institute, 2003). Data were combined across locations
after carrying out the homogeneity test of variances as suggested by Gomez and Gomez
(1984). Treatment means were compared using the least significant difference (LSD) at a
5% level of significance.

26
 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Physico-Chemical Properties of the Soils of Experimental Sites

The soil data of experimental sites is presented in (Table 1). As soil analysis showed that
the texture of the experimental site was dominated by the clay fraction at both locations.
Hence, on the basis of particle size distribution, the soil at MWU contains 22% sand,
26% silt, and 52% clay whereas the soil at SARC contains 20% Sand, 26% Silt and 54%
Clay particles. According to the soil textural class determination triangle, the soils of the
experimental site were predominantly clay. The clay texture indicates the high degree of
weathering that took place in geological times and the high nutrient and water holding
capacity of the soil. The soil has a low content of available phosphorus (P) at both
location according to the rating of Cottenie (1980) which indicates the requirement for
external application of phosphorus fertilizer sources for good crop growth and yield
(FAO, 2008). According to the rating of Murphy, (1968) and Tekalign (1991), the soil
reaction of the experimental site at MWU and SARC was slightly acidic. According to
FAO (2008) the suitable pH range for most crops is between 6.5 and 7.5 in which nutrient
availabilty is optimum. This indicates suitabilty of the soil reaction of the experimental
site for good growth of wheat.

According to the rating of Tekalign (1991) and Roy et al. (2006) percent organic carbon
content of the soil is medium at both site, respectively. This shows that the experimental
soil has low potential to supply mineralizable nitrogen to the plants during growth. This
report is consistent with that of Murage et al., (2000) who reported that soil organic
carbon is the major source of native mineral nitrogen for plant growth. The CEC value of
the soil sample is high (26.1 cmol kg-1 soil for MWU and 46.4 for SARC) according to
the rating of Landon (1991) indicating its better capacity to retain cations. The present
study soil total N was estimated to be 0.15% for MWU and 0.17 for SARC which is
indicated to be medium according to the total N classification. It is essential to note that
the mere total N level in soil may not indicate the availabilty of soil N to plants, as it
depends on many soil factors.

27
Table 1. Soil physical and chemical properties of soils of experimental sites

Parameter Value
MWU SARC
Particle size distribution (%)
Sand 22 20
Silt 26 26
Clay 52 54
Textural class (%) Clay Clay
pH 6.28 6.12
OC (%) 11.67 13.82
TN (meq/100g 0.15 0.17
CEC (mg/kg) 26.11 49.46
Available P 14.34 12.96

4.2. Weed Parameter

4.2.1. Weed flora in the experimental fields

The experimental fields of SARC was found to be infested with weeds, including of
broadleaved, sedge and grass weeds while MWU field was infested with broadleaved and
grass weeds (Table 2). Broadleaved weed species were dominant at both sites with
relative densities of 85.4% and 92.7% at MWU and SARC, respectively. Weed species
diversity was more at SARC wich is (24) in number and (22) at MWU. This show that at
both site there is high weed infestation with great diversity. The dominant broadleaved
weeds included Galisoga parviflora and Polyonum nepalense among broadleaved while
Digitaria abyssinica were among the grass weeds in MWU site were as in SARC sidisa
and Commelina benghalensis L. of broadleaved and Avena fatual of grass weeds. The
possible reason for more species occurrence at SARC could be the difference in high soil
fertilty and previous crop history relative to MWU at early stage of the crop growth. In
line with this result, Tamado and Milberg (2000) reported that altitude, rainfall, month of
planting, number of weeding and soil type were the major environmental/crop
management factors that influence the species distribution of weeds in eastern Ethiopia
(Does not reflect you finding).

28
 Table 2. Density (plants m-2) and percent of weed species in the experimental fields of
SARC and MWU bread wheat.

Scientific name Family MWU SARC

Weed density Relative Weed density Relative
(m2) densty (m-2) (m-2) density%
-
Broadleaved
Amaranthus spinosus L Amaranthaceae 7.1 0.92 11.6 1.19
Amaranthus hyridus. Amaranthaceae 16.0 2.07 74.7 7.66
Commelina benghalensis L. Equisetaceae 0.9 0.11 217.8 22.34
Galium spurium Asteraceae 22.2 2.87 17.8 1.82
Galinsoga parviflora Cav. Fabaceae 400.0 51.73 64.9 6.66
Medicago polymorpha L. Leguminosae 40.0 5.17 65.8 6.75
Polyonum nepalense Plantaginaceae 100.4 12.99 3.6 0.36
Guizotia scarbra Asteraceae 154.7 20.00 38.2 3.92
Datura stromonium Solanaceae 1.8 0.23 0.9 0.09
Solanum nigrum L. Solanaceae 12.4 1.61 20.4 2.10
Chenopodium procerum Chenopodiaceae 7.1 0.92 69.3 7.11
Erucastrum arebicum Brassicaceae 1.8 0.23 1.2 1.2
Bidens pachyloma Asteraceae 0.0 0.00 6.2 0.64
Common bean Leguminosae 1.8 0.23 0 0
Sidisa 1.8 0.23 363.6 37.29
cuscuta Convolvulaceae 0.0 0.00 15.1 1.55
Amaranthus spinosus L 5.3 0.69 5.3 0.55
Total 773.3 100 976.2 100
Grasses
Avena fatual Poaceae 19.6 15.07 13.3 21.1
Lolium temulentum Poaceae 22.2 17.12 1.8 2.8
Phalaris minor Poaceae 8.9 6.85 9.8 15.5
Bromus pectinatus Thunb Poaceae 16.9 13.01 13.3 21.1
Phalaris paradoxa L. Poaceae 3.6 2.74 13.3 21.1
Digitaria abyssinica Poaceae 57.8 44.51 8.9 14.1
Snowdenia polystachya Poaceae 0.9 0.68 2.7 4.2
Total 129.8 100 63.1 100
Sedge
Cyperus rotundus L.. Cyperaceae 0 0 13.3 100
Total 0 0 13.3 100
Overall relative density - 85.4 - 92.7

29
4.2.2. Weed Population

The data showed that a significant difference in broadleaved, grass, sedge and total weed
density due to weed management practices and site (Appendix Table 2). The least (2.3 m -
2
) grass weed density was recorded from the plots treated with Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha -1
integrated with wheat sown with 15 cm row spacing. However, this value is not
significantly different from the values recorded from plots treated with Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt
ha-1 integrated with 20 and Pyroxsulam 0.37 lt ha-1 integrated with 15 cm row spacing,
respectively at MW site. While the maximum (13.7 m -2) grass weeds density was
recorded in weedy check plot with 25 cm row spacing at MWU followed by (9.9 m -2)
Pyroxsulam 0.25 li ha-1 integrated with 25 row spacing of planting at SARC (Table 3).
This might be due to low soil disturbance systems of MWU site are likely to leave a large
portion of the weed seed bank on or near the soil surface of last cropping season resulting
in higher seedling emergence of than high soil disturbance systems of SARC site create
more grass weed at MWU than SARC site. In other words, this might be due to narrow
row spacing which has abilty of smothering weeds by inter specific competition between
the wheat and weeds where wheat competes better than weeds for space, light and
nutrients. In agreement with this current result, Dawit et al. (2014a) reported significant
reduction of broadleaf weed density (19 m-2) in 15 cm row spacing and attributed to lack
of enough free space as compared with wider spacing.

The highest density 6.1 m-2 of sedge weeds, were recorded from 25 cm row spacing of
weedy check treatment at SARC (Table 3). It was significantly different from the rest of
the treatments at both sites. This might be due to widest row spacing which gave weeds
chance of luxury growth and development of weeds and reduce the effeciany of the
herbicide at recommendation rate and below recommendation rate. The sedge grass weed
where not observed in MWU sites, this might be due to the difference in soil moisture
content that soil at site SARC is more wet and previous cropping practice. The least (5 m -
2
) sedge density was recorded from the plots treated with Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha-1
integrated with 15 row spacing followed by (6 m -2) which was obtained from plots treated
with Pyroxsulam 0.37 lt ha-1 integrated with 20 cm row spacing. While the maximum

30
(37.3m-2) sedge weeds density was recorded in weedy check plot with 25 cm row spacing
(Table 3).

Among the herbicide rates, Pyroxsulam 0.5 and 0.37 lt ha-1 integrated with 15 cm row
spacing at both site produced the minimum grass weed density wich is statically at par
(Table 3). Planting pattern such as closer row sowing (15cm) modified wheat canopy
structure and thus increased the weed smothering potential of the crop and enhance the
use of reduced herbicide rate. Similar to this experiment, increasing crop density has been
cited as a means to faciltate reduced herbicide use (Nazarko et al., 2005; Blackshaw et
al., 2005).

31
Table 3. Effect row spacing and weed control methods on grass and sedges weeds

Weed population (m-2)

Row
spacing Grass weed Sedge
(cm) Weed control methods MWU SARC SARC
25 Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt/ha 3.1 ( 9.9)
jkl
6.8ef(48 ) 0.7e (1)
Pyroxsulam 0.375 lt/ha 3.2jkl(10) 6.8ef (48) 0.7e (1)
Pyroxsulam 0.25 lt/ha 4.8ghi (22.6) 9.9cd (101.3) 1.5d (2)
Weed free 0.7 (0.0)
m
0.7m (0.0) 0.7m (0.0)
Weedy check 13.7a (187.6) 11.3b(128) 6.1a (37.3)
20 Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt/ha 2.6 (6.6)
l
6.1gf (37.3) 0.7e (1)
Pyroxsulam 0.375 lt/ha 2.9kl (8) 6.8ef (48) 0.7e (1)
Pyroxsulam 0.25 lt/ha 4.4 (19.6)
hij 10.2bc(104.3 1.5d (2)
)
Weed free 0.7m (0.0) 0.7m (0.0) 0.7m (0.0)
Weedy check 11.5b (133.3) 8.9cd (80) 5.4b (26.6)
15 Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt/ha 2.3 (5)
l
3.4i-l (16) 0.7e (1)
Pyroxsulam 0.375 lt/ha 2.5l(6) 5.5fgh(32) 0.7e (1.1)
Pyroxsulam 0.25 lt/ha 4.1 (16.6)
ijk
8.3d (69.3) 1.3ed (1.3)
Weed free 0.7m (0.0) 0.7m (0.0) 0.7m (0.0)
Weedy check 0.7 (64)
m
5.7fgh (32) 3.3c (10.6)
LSD (0.05) 1.3 0.6
CV (%) 15.6 33.1
Figures in parenthesis are original values, LSD (Least Significant difference), CV (Coefficient of
variation)..Means in the columns and rows followed by the same letters are not significantly different from
each other at 5% level of significance according to LSD's test.

Interaction of row spacing, herbicide rate and sites had significant (P<0.05) effect on
broadleaved density (Appendix Table 3). The highest broadleaved weed density (33.9m -2)
was obtained from 25 cm row spacing with weedy check treatment from SARC that was
significantly the highest than the rest of the treatments at both sites. This value was
followed by (33.7 m-2) with 25 cm row spacing of weed check treatment at MWU site.
This could be due to the soil at SARC site is so fertile especially the organic matter
favored the establishment and survival of more broadleaved weeds (Table 1).

In wider row spacing of wheat plating the weed infestation is high,the reason for higher
weed density existence in 25 cm row spacing of planting could be the more intre row
spacing that might have provided more space for weeds to occupy than the other spacing
and the competition of crop and smothering capacity to weeds is low. Similar to this

32
experiment the highest weed density of both broad and grassy weeds were recorded at 25
cm row spacing as compared with 15 cm row spacing (Dawit et al., 2014a). While the
minimum weed density of broadleaved (16.6 m 2) was recorded with Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha-
1
integrated with 15 cm row spacing and (22 m2) which statically at par with Pyroxsulam
0.37 lt ha-1 integrated with 15 cm row spacing (Table 4). Planting with narrow row
spacing of 15 cm at both site integrated with the application of Pyroxsulam at 0.5 lt and
0.37 lt ha-1 recorded the minimum broadleaved density. The result of this experiment is in
line with, that narrow row spacing can improve weed management because weeds are
smaller and more easily suppressed with herbicides than they are in wide row spacing
(Mongia et al., 2005).

The total weed density was significantly (P<0.01) affected by the interaction of row
spacing, herbicide rate and sites (Appendix Table 2). The 15 cm row spacing integrated
with Pyroxsulam with 0.5 lt ha-1 produced the least 21.6 and 73.3 m2 total weed density at
MWU and SARC sites respectively. While there was no significant difference between
20 cm and 25 cm row spacing integrated with 0.5lt ha-1 respectively at both sites.
Whereas the highest total weed density 50 m-2 and 48 m-2 were recorded under weedy
check integrated with 25 cm row spacing at SARC and MWU sites respectively.
Pyroxsulam at 0.25 lt ha-1 integrated with 25 cm row spacing had controlled fewer weeds
(24 m2) than the other herbicide rate at SARC (Table 4). This may due to the effect of
low doses of Pyroxsulam combined with wider row spacing that reduces the efficiency of
Pyroxsulam. At the same time, it was hypothesized that increased crop density can
partially reduce herbicide application rate. Increasing crop density has been cited as a
means to faciltate reduced herbicide use (Nazarko et al., 2005; Blackshaw et al., 2005).

Pyroxsulam at 0.5lt ha-1 with 15 cm row spacing at MWU reduced the total weed density
by 76.8% compared to the weedy check at the same site. The total weed density also
decreased by reducing the row spacing at both sites; however, this decrease was
significant with the application of Pyroxsulam at 0.5 and 0.37 lt ha-1 rates at both sites.
Pyroxsulam with 0.25 lt ha-1 with 15 row spacing perform better at MWU with the same
spacing to SARC. In agreement with this result, narrow row spacing can improve weed

33
 management because weeds are smaller and more easily suppressed with herbicides than
they are in wide row spacing (Mongia et al., 2005).

Table 4. Effect row spacing and weed control methods on broad leaved weeds and total
weeds.

Row
spacing
Number of weeds ((m-2)
(cm) Weed control methods
Broadleaved Total weed

MWU SARC MWU SARC

25 Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt/ha 6.5hij ( 43.3) 8.9efg(80 ) 10.4k (53) 17g (1)
Pyroxsulam 0.375 lt/ha 7.3 (54)
g-j
8.8 (48)
efg
11.2 (64)
jk
16.9g (126.3)
Pyroxsulam 0.25 lt/ha 12.8 (166)
c
11.9 (142.6)
c
18.4 (188.6)
gf
24.8e (272.6)
Weed Free 0.7 (0.0)
m
0.7 (0.0)
m
0.7 (0.0)
e
0.7m (0.0)
Weedy Check 33.7 (1142)
a
33.9 (1420.6)
a
48.2 (1329.6)
a
50a (1290.6)
20 Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt/ha 6.1 (38)
jk
8.8 (78.3)
efg
9.4 (44.6)
klm
16.2gh (116.3)
Pyroxsulam 0.375 lt/ha 6.5 (43.3)
ijk
8.2 (67.6)
ghi
10.1 (51.3)
kl
16.3g (116.6)
Pyroxsulam 0.25 lt/ha 10.3 (118.6)
d-f
10.2 (128.3
bc
16 (137.6)
gh
23.1e (234.6)
Weed Free 0.7 (0.0)
m
0.7 (0.0)
m
0.7 (0.0)
e
0.7m (0.0)
Weedy Check 32.3 (1051.3) 32.5 (1061)
a a
44.6 (1184.6)
c
46.6bc (1168)
15 Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt/ha 4 (16.6)
l
7.6 (57.3)
g-j
7 ( 21.6)
m
11.8ijk(73.3)
Pyroxsulam 0.375 lt/ha 4.4 (22)
lk
7.5 (56.3)
g-j
7.7 (28)
lm
13.8hi(88.3)
Pyroxsulam 0.25 lt/ha 8.5 (75.3)
fgh
10.3 (107.6) 13.3 (92)
def ij
20f(178.3)
Weed Free 0.7 (0.0)
m
0.7 (0.0)
m
0.7 (0.0)
e
0.7m (0.0)
Weedy Check 24.6 (614)
b
24.8 (624)
b
33.3 (678)
d
33.5d (666.6)
LSD (0.05) 2 2.4
CV (%) 11 8.5
The data was subjected to square root transformation (√x+0.5). Figures in parenthesis are original values,
LSD (Least Significant difference), CV (Coefficient of variation). Means in the columns and rows followed
by the same letters are not significantly different from each other at 5% level of significance according to
LSD's test.

4.2.3. Weed dry weight

Analysis of variance indicated that row spacing, herbicide application and their
interactions resulted in significant differences on weed dry weight (Appendix Table 2).
The highest weed dry weight (24.7 g m-2) was recorded from plots planted with 25 cm
row spacing under weedy check treatment at SARC. This value was significantly
different from the rest of the values except the same treatment at MWU (Table 5).
Whereas the lowest total weed dry weight of (5.5 m-2) where recorded with Pyroxsulam
0.5 lt ha-1 integrated with 15 row spacing at MWU. However it was not staticaly different

34
from Pyroxsulam 0.37 lt ha-1 integrated with 15 cm with 0.5 lt ha-1 at both sites,
respectively (Table 5). This result plus less space for weed development, better
competition of wheat crop for development resource, crop growth rate, early space
covering, and light interception in narrow row compare to wide row spacing. These in
agreement with, Saini et al. (2014) reported that wider spacing of 22.5 cm and 30 cm
resulted in significantly higher weed dry matter over narrow spacing of 15 cm row
spacing. Since in wider spacing weeds are not suppressed effectively by crop plants. In
general, narrower row spacing (15 cm) reduced weed dry weight significantly than the
wider spacing (25 cm). Closely spaced crop provided good smothering potential on
growth and development of weeds due to less availabilty of space as well as shading.

Interaction of 15 cm row spacing with Pyroxsulam at 0.5lt ha-1 reduced the weed dry
weight by 82% and 58.1% at MWU and SARC, respectively, as compared to the same
row spacing of planting under weedy check. The establishment of competitive cropping
systems will faciltate the use of lower herbicide doses. Nevertheless, other factors need to
be considered in the decision to use reduced herbicide doses. Some researchers reported
that weed biomass decreased and grain yield increased as crop density increased (Eslami
et al., 2006; Olsen and Weiner, 2005).

4.2.4. Weed control efficiency

Interaction of row spacing, herbicide rate and sites had significant (P<0.05) effect on total
weed control efficiency (Appendix Table 2). The highest total weed control efficiency
(74.3%) was obtained from 15 cm row spacing integrated with Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha -1
treatment from MWU that was significantly higher than the rest of the treatments at both
Sites followed by Pyroxsulam 0.37 lt ha-1 integrated with 15 cm row spacing of planting
at MWU (Table 5). While in SARC maximum weed control efficiency of (67.3 %) with
Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha-1 of 15 cm row spacing and the minimum weed control was
observed with 25 cm row spacing with Pyroxsulam 0.25 lt ha-1 from SARC. Further at
both site row spacing with 15 cm combined with Pyroxsulam in rate of 0.5 and 0.37 lt ha -
1
had showed better weed control efficiency. This result indicated that herbicides with 15

35
cm narrow spacing had better weed control efficiency than the others. The increasing
herbicide application proved more efficient than their lower rates application thus; higher
the weed control efficiency of a treatment, the greater was the weed control. Similar to
Ashenafi and Dawit (2014) recorded the minimum weed density with weed control
efficiency (WCE) of 84.4% obtained with Pyroxsulam at the rate of 0.5 kg ha-1 in wheat.

Table 5. Effect row spacing and weed control methods on weed dry matter and weed
control efficiency

Row Weed control methods Weed dry weight Weed control efficiency
spacing (g/m2)
(cm) MW SARC MW SARC
25 Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt/ah 6.9 ( 47.8)
klm
9.1 gih
(83.3 ) 63.3 55.3
Pyroxsulam 0.375 lt/ha 7.5 (57.4)
jkl
9.8 (96.2)
fgh
52.6 44.7
Pyroxsulam 0.25 lt/ha 11.2ef (126.6) 12.7d(166) 49.3 37.6
Weed free check 0.7m (0.0) 0.7m (0.0) 0 0
Weedy Check 24.6 (610.9)
a
24.7 (613.3)
a
0 0
20 Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt/ah 6.9klm (47.7) 8.9ghij (79) 68.3 60.7
Pyroxsulam 0.375 lt/ha 7.4jkl (56.1) 8.7hij (75.6) 62.3 54.6
Pyroxsulam 0.25 lt/ha 8.6 (74.6)
hij
12. (146)
0ed
60.6 45.6
Weed free check 0.7m (0.0) 0.7m (0.0) 0 0
Weedy Check 21.8b (478.9) 21.8b (472) 0 0
15 Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt/ah 5.5 (30.2)
m
8.1 ijk
(66.3) 74.3 67.33
Pyroxsulam 0.375 lt/ha 6.2lm (38.9) 8.1ijk (66.6) 67 59
Pyroxsulam 0.25 lt/ha 5.7 (59.3)
b-e
10.2gf(104.3) 48.6 47.5
Weed free check 0.7 (0.0)
m
0.7 (0.0)
m
0 0
Weedy Check 18 (326.)
c
19.3 (376)
c
0 0
LSD 1.4 6.0
CV (%) 9.1 10.8
Numbers in parentheses are the original and those outside the parentheses are the square root transformed
values; Means followed by the same letter within each column and row for the same parameters are not
significantly different; LSD = least significant difference; CV = coefficient of variation.

4.3. Crop Parameters

4.3.1. Plant height and days to flowering

Interaction of row spacing, herbicide rate and sites had significant (P<0.05) effect on
days to heading (Appendix Table 3). The shortest days to heading 63 and 64 days, which
was not significantly different from each other were obtained from the weed free plots

36
planted with 15 and 20 cm row spacings, respectively at SARC (Table 6). While a
maximum day to heading (72.3 days) was obtained from weedy check plots planted with
25 cm row spacing. These days were not significantly different from the number of days
obtained from Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha-1 integrated with 25 and 20 cm row spacing,
Pyroxsulam 0.37 lt ha-1 integrated with 20 cm row spacing and weedy check integrated
with 20 cm row spacing at MWU. Furthermore, the value was not significantly different
from Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha-1 and weedy check integrated with 25 cm row spacing at
ASRC. The possible reason for earlier heading at SARC and late heading at MWU could
be due to higher temperature at SARC which could shorten crop phenological stages. On
the other handhigh rainfall at MWU might have also prolonged crop phenological stages
(Appendix Table 1). Furthermore plants in weedy check plots were late to heading; this
could be attributed to that tough competion for common resource like nutrient and light in
the presence of weeds, which finally could result in delay of days to heading. Nano et al.,
(2016) reported that uninterrupted weed growth delayed the days to ear emergence.
Similarly, Liqbal (2002) reported that control plot took more days to mature due to
shading effect of weeds to soil surface in wheat.

The number of days to heading in weed-free plots was significantly earlier than the other
treatments, while no significant difference existed between Pyroxsulam with the rate of
0.5 lt ha-1 and 0.37 lt ha-1 to attain days to heading. On the other hand, Pyroxsulam with
rate of 0.25 lt ha-1 have slightly late to heading due to high weed infestation throughout
the crop growth over other treatments. The shading of crop plants by the weeds might
have reduced sunlight penetration; thus, prolonging the vegetative growth, resulting in
delayed flowering and physiological maturity. This might have reduced the vegetative
growth and delayed the transition to the reproductive period and finally to physiological
maturity. Similarly, Sunday and Udensi (2013) reported delayed number of days to 50%
flowering and physiological maturity in cowpea due to uncontrolled weed growth. With
the rate of 0.5 lt ha-1 and 0.37 lt ha-1 of days to attain days to heading. On the other hand,
Pyroxsulam with rate of 0.25lt ha-1 have slight late to heading due to high weed
infestation throughout the crop growth over other treatments. Similary Nano et al., (2016)
reported that uninterrupted weed growth delays the day to emergence.

37
Table 6. Effect row spacing and weed control methods on plant height and days to
flowering

Row spacing Weed control Plant height Days to

(cm) methods (cm) flowering
MWU SARC MWU SARC

25 Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt/ha 93kl 97.3e-i 72ab 71a-e

Pyroxsulam 0.375 lt/ha 93.6ljk 97.6d-i 71.3a-d 70.6b-e
Pyroxsulam 0.25 lt/ha 96g-k 97d-i 70.6b-e 68.3gh
Weed free 98.6c-h 89m 68.3gh 65.3ij
Weedy Check 101.6abc 99c-h 72.3a 71.6abc
20 Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt/ah 95.6h-k 99.2c-f 71a-e 70def
Pyroxsulam 0.375 lt/ha 96.6e-j 99.2 c-f 70.6b-e 69.6 efg
Pyroxsulam 0.25 lt/ah 98e-h 98.6c-h 69gfh 67.6h
Weed Free 99.6b-f 92lm 68h 64jk
Weedy Check 103.6a 100.6a-d 71.6abc 70d-f
15 Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt/ha 97.6e-i 99.6b-f 70def 69.6efg
Pyroxsulam 0.375 lt/ha 99c-h 99.6 b-f 70def 69fgh
Pyroxsulam 0.25tl/ha 100b-c 99.6b-f 68.3gh 65.3i
Weed Free 96.3f-k 94.3i-l 67.6h 63k
Weedy check 103.6a 103ab 70.3c-f 69fgh
LSD (0.05) 3.4 1.1
CV (%) 2.0 17.6

Means followed by the same letter within each column and row for the same parameters are not
significantly different; LSD = least significant difference; CV = coefficientof variation.

4.3.2. Days to physiological maturity

Interaction of row spacing and herbicide rate had significant (P<0.05) effect on days to
90% physiological maturity (Appendix Table 3). The shortest days to 90% physiological
maturity (137 days) was obtained from 15 cm row spacing integrated with weed free
treatment. However, it was not significantly different from 20 and 25 cm row spacing
integrated with weed free plots. While delayed physiological maturity (144.3 days) was
observed with 25 cm row spacing integrated with weedy check treatment, that was
significantly longest than the rest of the treatments (Table 7). Plants, which were kept
weed-free throughout the season, attained flowering and maturity earlier than the plants
in plots receiving different weeding frequency and weedy check treatments .Similar to
the days to heading, days to 90 % physiological maturity of the crop was also delayed as
uninterrupted weed growth delayed the days to ear emergence. Similarly, Liqbal (2002)

38
reported that controlled plots took more days to mature due to shading effect of weeds to
soil surface in wheat.

Table 7. Effect row spacing and herbicide rate on days to physiological maturity

Weed control methods Row spacing

(cm)
15 20 25
Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt/ha 140ed 141.6bc 142.1b
Pyroxsulam 0.375 lt/ha 138.8ef 140ed 140.8cd
Pyroxsulam 0.25 lt/ha 138 f
139 ef
140ed
Weed-free check 137 g
137.8 gf
137.8gf
Weedy check 140.3 d
142 bc
144.3a
LSD (5%) 1.3
CV (%) 0.8
Means followed by the same letter within each column and row are not significantly different; LSD = least
significant difference; CV = coefficient of variations.

4.3.3. Number of effective tillers per plant

Interaction of row spacing, herbicide rate and sites had significant (P<0.05) effect on
effective tillers (Appendix Table 3). The highest effective tillers (7.60) per plant was
obtained from 25 cm row spacing integrated with weed free plots from SARC that was
significantly higher than the rest of the treatments at both sites followed by (7.00) from15
cm row spacing integrated with Pyroxsulam in the rate of 0.5 lt ha-1 from SARC (Table
8). While the lowest effective tillers number were obtained from weed check treatment
integrated with 25 cm row spacing (1.00) at MWU. The possible reason of that more
tiller production to SARC is that better soil fertilty (Table 1) enhances to have much tiller
number per plant.

Among the herbicides treated plots, high (7.00) number and 6.3 effective tillers observed
from 15 cm row spacing integrated with Pyroxsulam 0.5 ha-1 level followed with 0.37 lt
ha-1 in with the same row spacing at both site. These might be due to narrow spacing
integrated with better weed control efficiency that provides sufficient space for tiller
development. Similarly, Gupta (2012) reported that reduced weed density and weed dry
matter helps to get sufficient space for optimum expansion of leaves and branches. The
interaction between row spacing and frequency of weeding was significant, while the

39
lowest number of tiller was at 25 cm and weedy check (Dawit et al., 2014a) Similarly, it
was reported that the maximum number of tillers were recorded in Isoprotoun at 1.5 kg
ha-1 integrated with 15 cm followed by hand weeding integrated with 15 cm row spacing
(Tesfaye, 2014).

Table 8. Effect row spacing and weed control methods on number of effective tillers

Number of effective tillers per plant

Row spacing Weed control methods
(cm ) (lt/ha) MWU SARC
25 Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt/ha 3.3h-k 4.3e-h
Pyroxsulam 0.375 lt/ha 3.3h-k 4f-i
Pyroxsulam 0.25 ltha 2.6jkl 2lmn
Weed free 4.3e-h 7.6a
Weedy check 1n 1.3mn
20 Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt/ha 3.6g-j 5def
Pyroxsulam 0.375 lt/ha 3.6g-j 5def
Pyroxsulam 0.25 lt/ha 3.3h-k 2.6ljk
Weed free 4.6efg 6bcd
Weedy check 2.3lkm 2.3lkm
15 Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt/ha 5.3ced 7ab
Pyroxsulam 0.375 lt/ha 5def 6.3bc
Pyroxsulam 0.25 lt/ha 4f-i 3.6g-j
Weed free 6.3bc 5a
Weedy check 3b-l 3.3h-k
LSD 1.1
CV 11.7
Means followed by the same letter within each column and row for the same parameters are not
significantly different; LSD = least significant difference; CV = coefficient of variations;

4.3.4. Spike length

Interaction of herbicide rates and row spacings where significantly (P<0.05) affected
spike length (Appendix Table 3). The maximum (8.4 cm) spike length per plant was
recorded from15 cm row spacing integrated with weed free plots, followed by 15 cm row
spacing integrated with Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha-1. Higher number of spike length plant-1 in
weed-free check might be due to the absence of competition from weeds as the plots were
kept weed-free throughout the cropping season. This might be due to reduced weed
density causes availabilty of space that could increase yield component of wheat.

40
Under least crop-weed-competition, adequate availabilty of light, temperature, and space
could increase physiological characters thereby resulting in more dry matter
accumulation (Yadav and Choudhary, 2015). Whereas the minimum spike length per
plant was recorded (4) from 25cm row spacing integrated with weed check treatment
(Table 9). While no significant differences were observed between 0.5 and 0.37 lt ha -1
herbicide rate on spike length integrated with 15 and 20 cm row spacing. Consensus to
the finding that planting pattern such as closer row sowing (15cm) or bi-directional
sowing (22.5cm× 22.5cm) modified wheat canopy structure and thus increased the weed
smothering potential of the crop (Walia et al 2007). Narrow row spacing produces high
leaf are index, which results in more interception of photo-synthetically active radiation
and dry matter accumulation (Ashrafi et al. 2009).

4.3.5. Number of seeds per spike

Interaction of weed management practices and row spacings significantly (P<0.01)

affected number of seed per spike (Appendix table 4). The maximum (59.8) number of
seed per spike was recorded at 15 cm row spacing integrated with weed free plots,
followed by 15 cm row spacing integrated with Pyroxsulam 0.5 and 0.37 lt ha -1. While
the minimum seed per spike (34) was observed in weedy check integrated with 25 row
spacing (Table 9). This might be due to reduced weed density causes availabilty of space
that could increase yield component of wheat. Under least crop-weed-competition,
adequate availabilty of light, temperature, and space could increase physiological
characters thereby resulting in more dry matter accumulation (Yadav and Choudhary,
2015). This current result is in contrast with the finding of Tesfaye (2014) who reported
that the maximum number of kernels per spike was obtained in 15 cm spacing and hand
weeding treatment. Similarly, Dawit et al., (2014b) also reported that the maximum
number of kernels per spike was recorded at hand weeding treatment over the herbicides
(Pyroxsulam, 24 DEE, Isoprotoun and Pendimethalin) or their combination in bread
wheat.

41
Table 9. Effect row spacing and weed control methods on spike length and number of
seeds per spike

Spike length number of seeds perspike

Weed control methods

Row spacing (cm) Row spacing (cm)
15 20 25 15 20 25
Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt/ha 7.9b 7.5c 6.9e 57b 52d 50f
Pyroxsulam 0.375 lt/ha 7.6c 7.1d 6.5f 57b 51.6ed 51e
Pyroxsulam 0.25 lt/ha 6.2g 5.6h 5.5h 49.6f 48g 45.6h
Weed-free check 8.4 a
7.5 c
7.2d 59a 54c 51.3ed
Weedy check 5.2i 4.5j 4k 41i 37j 34k
LSD (5%) 0.1 0.9
CV (%) 2.2 16
Means followed by the same letter within each column and row are not significantly different; LSD = least
significant difference; CV = coefficient of variations;

4.3.6. Aboveground biomass (Kg ha-1)

Interaction effect of weed management practices row spicing were also and significantly
(P<0.01) affected aboveground biomass yield of bread wheat (Appendix table 4).
Accordingly the highest biomass yield (12417. kg ha-1) was recorded in weed free plot
integrated with 15 cm row spacing and it was statistically at par with Pyroxsulam 0.5lt ha -
1
with 15 cm row spacing which could be due to better weed control over the other
treatments. While the lowest biomass yield (7061.1 kg ha -1) was recorded for weedy
check integrated with 25 cm row spacing (Table 10).This difference in dry matter
accumulation might be due to the fact that, dry matter is interrelated with plant height and
number of tillers per unit area and the tillers count m-2 was higher under 15 cm row
spacing (Table 8). The increased biomass yield might be due to decreased weed
population and dry weight with 15 cm row spacing integrated with 0.5 and 0.37 lt ha -1
(Table 5) caused better utilization of growth resources and translocation of assimilates
from source to sink since plant with better accesses to environmental resources had better
photosynthetic formation and in turn it is expressed on biomass. Similarly, the lowest dry
matter yield in wheat was recorded in weedy check plot due to unavailabilty of better
light interception, nutrient and moisture for grain and straw accumulation (Dawit et al.,
2014).

42
Among herbicide treated plots low herbicide rate combination at narrow row spacing 15
cm had better biomass yield than combination with 20 cm and 25 row spacing which is
similar to application of recommended rate. These might be due to reduced row spacing
been identified as integral components of competitive cropping systems enhance
herbicide coverage, uptake, and efficacy can be greater very important for proper
distribution of plants over cultivated area, thereby better utilization of available soil and
atmospheric resources. A similar result was observed in spring wheat (T. aestivum) which
accumulated greater biomass at a faster rate under the close row spacing (15.0 cm) than
wider row spacing (30.0 cm), resulting in higher grain production (Chengi et al., 2008).

4.3.7. Grain yield

Analysis of variance indicated that an interaction ofweed management practices and row
spacingshighly significantly (P<0.01) affected the grain yield of wheat (Appendix table
5). The maximum grain yield (4985.7Kg ha-1) was recorded from integration of 15 cm
row spacing in weed free plotsthat did not significantly vary from 15 cm row spacing in
Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha-1 (4846.9 kg ha-1). The lowest grain yield (2000.4Kg ha-1) was
recorded from 25 cm row spacing in weedy check, which was statisticallyat par with the
grain yield obtained from 15 cm row spacing under weedy plots (Table 10). These might
be due to reduced weed infestation provided conducive environment for proper growth
and development of crop plant and yield attributes to the desirable extent. The variation
in yield was related to differences in weed management methods. Plants growing in weed
free environment could utilize the available growth resources without competition which,
in turn, increased yield components, such as number of tillers, kernels per spike and
thousand grain weight that attributes to final yield increase (Dawit et al., 2014a). The
lowest grain yield recorded from 25 cm in weedy check might be due to intensive
competition of weeds with high dry matter that highly affected the yield obtained at the
end. Theresult was in harmonywith the finding of Din et al. (2017) who obtained the
maximum (4888 Kg ha-1) grain yield at 15 cm followed by at 20 cm row, while the
minimum (2019 Kg ha-1) grain yield was recorded at 40 cm row spacing.

43
However, from the pyroxsulam with low rate of 0.37 lt ha-1 integrated with 15 cm row
spacing show better grain yield than that of with 20 cm and 25 cm row spacing
treatments. Similarly, reduced row spacing when integrated with broad spectrum
herbicides will reduce weed density which in turn increases the competitive abilty of the
crop that leads to increase in yield. In agreement with current result Tesfaye (2014)
reported maximum grain yield from the integration of 15 cm with Isoprotoun at a rate 1.5
kg ha-1followed by 15 cm hand weeding. At the same time, it was hypothesized that
increased crop density can partially reduce herbicide application rate. Increasing crop
density has been cited as a means to faciltate reduced herbicide use (Nazarko et al., 2005;
Blackshaw et al., 2005).

Table 10.. Effect row spacing and weed control methods on biomass yield and grain yield
(kg/ha)

biomass yield Grain yield

Weed control methods Row spacing (cm) Row spacing (cm)
15 15 15 15 20 25
Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt/ha 12107a 10971.2cde 10030efg 4846.9ab 3454.9ef 3367.4ef
Pyroxsulam 0.375 lt/ha 11944b 10422.8d-f 9961.7efg 4513.9bc 3806.3de 3055.6fh
Pyroxsulam 0.25 lt/ha 9735.1fg 8140.4f 9332.7gh 3385.9ef 3274.7fg 3140.9fg
Weed-free check 12417.4 a
11190 bcd
10506.8def 4985.7a 4232.6dc 3963d
Weedy check 8391.7hi 8498.5hi 7061.1j 2296.6h 2835.4g 2000.4h
LSD (5%) 1115.4 458.5
CV (%) 9.6 11.2
Means followed by the same letter within each column and row are not significantly different; LSD = least
significant difference; CV = coefficientof variation.

4.3.8. Thousand seed weight

Thousand kernels weight was highly significantly (P<0.01) affected by weeding control
and row spacing interaction, while site had no significant influence on this parameter
(Appendix Table 4). Plants, which were kept weed-free with row spacing of 25 cm
throughout the season, had the highest hundred seed weight (57.3 g) followed by
Pyroxsulam with rate of 0.5 lt ha-1with 15 cm row spacing (Table 11). The plants raised
under complete weed-free environment utilized available resources to their maximum
benefit leading to increased seed weight due to reduced competition for growth resources

44
that might have enabled the plantsto enhance the availabilty of nutrients and better
translocation of photosynthesis from source to sink resulting in higher accumulation of
photosynthesis in the seeds. Similar to this experiment, the maximum thousand grain
weight was recorded at 25 cm with completely weed free (Dawit et al., 2014 a).

Plants, which were not weeded throughout the season with high row spacing of 25 cm,
had the lowest hundred seed weight (33.9 g). This is because in wider spatial
arrangements weeds were not suppressed effectively by crop plants and thus weeds grow
freely resulting in higher weed dry weight and lower weed control (Saini et al .,2014).
However, of the weed management practicesof herbicide rate with Pyroxsulam at rate of
0.5 and 0.37lt ha-1not vary thatmuch significantly from each with 15 cm row spacing
while low doses of herbicide with wider row spacing show minimum TKW.

4.3.9. Harvest index

Weed management method and its interaction with row spacing had significant (P<0.05)
effect on harvest index (Appendix Table 5). The highest harvest index (40.3%) was
recorded from 15 cm row spacing integrated with weed free check plotsfollowed by
Pyroxsulam at 0.5lt ha-1integrated with 15 and 20 cm row spacing (Table 14). Similarly,
reported that a positive relationship found between grain weight and harvest index. It
means that increased of grain weight results increased harvest index (Amare, 2017).

On the other hand the lowest harvest index was recorded fromintegration of 15 cm row
spacing and weedy check plots (24.7%). Similarly Sagni,2018 reported that the lowest
harvest index was recorded at combination of 15 cm and weedy check plot (18.36%).
Since grain yield is directly proportional to harvest index, both high and low values could
be explained by source to sink relationship in dry matter accumulation of the crop.

45
Table 11. Effect row spacing and weed control methods on thousand kernel weights and
Harvest Index %

Thousand kernel weights Harvest Index %

Weed control methods Row spacing (cm) Row spacing (cm)
15 15 20 15 15 20
Pyroxsulam 0.5 56b 52.4d 49.5f 40a 40a 34.6a-e
Pyroxsulam 0.37 53.5c 52.1d 48.5g 38 abc
31.4 de
34b-e
Pyroxsulam 0.25 41.5h 40.9h 39i 35.7a-e 31de 30ef
Weed-free check 50.3 e
53.7 c
57.1a 40.3 ab
37.8 a-d
38.2abc
Weedy check 38.5i 36.5j 33.9k 27.1g 33.4cde 28.3gh
LSD (5%) 0.6 6.4
CV (%) 1.2 15.8
Means followed by the same letter within each column and row are not significantly different; LSD = least
significant difference; CV = coefficientof variation.

4.3.10. Yield loss

While comparing the yield loss due to the weed management practices, the lowest in
yield loss (4.2%) was recorded in weed free integrated with 15 row spacing as compared
to the highest yield obtained from weed free integrated with 15 cm row spacing. This was
followed by Pyroxsulam 0.5lt ha-1 integrated with 15 cm row spacing (6.9% ) and 15 row
spacing integrated with Pyroxsulam 0.37 lt ha-1 (13.3%) whereas; it was the highest
(61.5%) in weed check with 25 cm row spacing (Table 12).

Table 12. Effect row spacing and weed control methods on yield loss (%)

Weed control methods Row spacing (cm)

15 20 25
Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt/ha 6.9gh 26.9cd 35.3cd
Pyroxsulam 0.375 lt/ha 13.3gf 33.6ed 41.3bc
Pyroxsulam 0.25 lt/ha 34.9cd 37.1bc 39.6bc
Weed-free check 4.2h 18.7ef 23.9e
Weedy check 55.9a 45.5b 61.5a
LSD (5%) 8.8
CV (%) 23.9
Means followed by the same letter within each column and row are not significantly different; LSD = least
significant difference; CV = coefficientof variation.

46
4.4. Correlation Analysis on Yield Components and Yield of Bread Wheat

As it is indicated in Table 13. The correlation study among bread wheat agronomic
parameters was quantified and strong correlation was observed between some of bread
wheat yield components. Spike length showed positive and highly significant correlation
with number of kernels per spike (r=0.96) and thousand kernel weight (r=0.91) (Table
13). In this study Grain Yield showed positive and highly significant correlation with its
components such as number of kernel per spike (r=0.93), thousand kernel weight (r=0.74)
and positive and significant correlation with spike length (r= 0.83). This means with
increasing value of these parameters, grain yield increases as well and vice versa. Besides
this, there was non-significant and negative correlation between grain yield and plant
height (r=-0. 33) and effective physiological maturity of bread wheat (r=- 0.57). Harvest
index was positively and highly significantly correlated with grain yield (r=0.72), number
of kernel per spike (r=0.43) and thousand kernel weight (r=0.34). On the other hand
negative and significant correlation with plant height (r=-0.20*).

Table 13. Correlation analysis of Bread wheat agronomic parameters

DH DM PH ETN SL SPP AGBY TKW GY

DH 1
PM 0.65** 1
PH 0.33** 0.26* 1
FT -0.44** -0.45** -0.32** 1
SL -0.40** -0.53** -0.43** 0.75** 1
SPP -0.43** -0.61** -0.43** 0.72** 0.96** 1
AGBY -0.34 -0.45** -0.32* 0.63** 0.82** 0.80** 1
TKW -0.27* -0.43** -0.45** 0.82** 0.91** 0.86** 0.75** 1
GY -0.47** -0.57** -0.33** 0.65** 0.83** 0.83** 0.75** 0.74** 1
DH=days to 50% heading, DM=days to 90% physiological maturity, PH=plant height, ETN=effective tiller
numbers, SL=spike length, SPP=number seed per spike, TKW=thousand kernel weight, AGBY= above
ground biomass yield, GY=grain yield, HI=harvest index*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level **.
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

47
4.5. Economic Analysis

Weed management practices significantly (P<0.01) influenced grain yield (Table 14).
Therefore, an economic analysis on the combined results using the partial budget
procedure was performed (CIMMYT, 1988). Partial budget analysis was calculated to
determine economic feasibilty of weed management methods as shown in (Table 14).
The highest variable cost was 15 row spacing with Pyroxsulam at 0.5 lt ha-1 treatments
(3100 Birr ha-1). The economic analysis indicated that the highest net benefit (49246.5
Birr ha-1), was obtained from 15 cm row spacing at Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha -1 followed by
the application of Pyroxsulam 0.37 lt ha-1 integrated with 15 cm row spacing. The
benefit gained from this treatment was 52.9% greater than from the value obtained from
the weedy check application. In general, costs benefit analysis showed that application of
Pyroxsulam 15lt ha-1 at 15 cm row spacing results high economic return. The highest net
benefits next to Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha-1 was that Pyroxsulam 0.37 lt ha-1 from the above
mentioned weed management practices could be attributed to high yield and low cost of
herbicides compared to the other weed management practices. Thus, from the economic
point of view, it was obvious that lower rate of Pyroxsulam at 0.37 lt ha -1 with 15 row
spacing was more economical than the rest of the weed management practices next to
Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha-1 with 15 cm row spacing .

48
Table 14. Profitabilty of weed control methods in wheat

Total Net
Gross variable
Average Adjusted cost benefit
yield yield benefit
(ETB (ETB ha-
(kg ha )
-1
(kg ha )
-1
(ETB ha 1)) ha-1)
- 1
)
Weed control methods
Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha-1 +25 cm 3367.4 3030.66 36367.9 3100 33267.9
Pyroxsulam 0.375 lt ha-1 +25 cm 3055.6 2750.04 33000.5 2736 30264.5
Pyroxsulam 0.25 lt ha-1 +25 cm 3140.9 2826.81 33921.7 2400 31521.7
Weedy check + 25 cm 2304.9 2074.41 24892.9 1700 23192.9
Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha-1 +20 cm 3454.9 3109.41 37312.9 3100 34212.9
Pyroxsulam 0.375 lt ha-1 +20 cm 3806.3 3425.67 41108.0 2736 38372.0
Pyroxsulam 0.25 lt ha-1 +20 cm 3274.7 2947.23 35366.8 2400 32966.8
Weedy check + 20 cm 2835.4 2551.86 30622.3 1700 28922.3
Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha-1 +15 cm 4846.9 4362.21 52346.5 3100 49246.5
Pyroxsulam 0.375 lt ha-1 +15 cm 4513.9 4062.51 48750.1 2736 46014.1
Pyroxsulam 0.25 lt ha-1 +15 cm 3385.9 3047.31 36567.7 2400 34167.7
Weedy check +15 cm 2584 2325.6 27907.2 1700 26207.2
ETB = Ethiopian Birr; Herbicide rates of 0.5, 0.37 and 0.25 lt ha-1 were used for 15 cm, 20 cm and 25 cm
row spacing; Cost of herbicide for planting ETB 1400 0.5 lt ; Spraying ETB 200 ha-1; Sale price of bread
wheat ETB 13 kg-1; Field price of bread wheat ETB 12 kg-1; Cost of harvesting, threshing and winnowing
ETB 75 per 100 kg; Packing and material ETB cost 15 per 100 kg and transportation ETB 10 per 100 kg;
ETB= 0.03 USD (April 25, 2019).

49
 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Bread wheat is one of the highland crops, which is widely produced in southeast highland
of Ethiopia. However, its productivity is below its genetic potential due to weeds,
diseases, low soil fertilty, unfavorable climate and inadequate agronomic practices.
Improper weed management is a major constraint in wheat production due to overlapping
activities. This requires searching for alternative and feasible research solutions. There is
a research gap on effect of row spacing and herbicide rate on weed control yield of bread
wheat in the study area. The objective of the study was to investigate the effect of row
spacing and herbicide on weed infestation, yield components and yield of wheat. Three
row spacings (15, 20 and 25 cm) and five weed management practices, which include
three doses of herbicide Pyroxsulam (0.5, 0.37, and 0.25 lt ha -1, weedy check and weed
free plot) were laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three
replications in factorial arrangement.

Broadleaved weeds were the dominate weed flora at MWU and SARC during 2018/19
main cropping season. However, grass weeds were more dominate at MWU and sedge at
SARC. Total weed density and total weed dry weight were significantly (P<0.01)
affected by weed management methods. Weed density was found to varied significantly
among the treatments, the interaction effect of row spacing and herbicide rate had
produced significant (P<0.01) effect on broadleaved, grass and sedge weed density. The
lowest (4, and 6.1 m-2) broad leaf density was recorded from 15 cm and 20 cm row
spacing integrated with Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha-1 treatments, respectively at MWU site. The
application of Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha-1 integrated with 15 cm row spacing, Pyroxsulam 0.5
lt ha-1 with 20 cm row spacing reduced density of weeds by 71.25 and 77 respectively
over uncontrolled weed growth. Although, Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha-1 resulted in minimum
total weed density with 15 cm row spacing, it is statically at par with 0.37 lt ha -1 with 15
cm row spacing ha-1. Further, with the 75% herbicide application rates, the density of all
categories of weeds as well as the total weed density decreased significantly. However,
all herbicidal treatments were found to be significantly better than weedy check in
controlling weeds.

50
The application of Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha-1 resulted in significant reduction in weed dry
weight (5.5, 8.1 gm m-2 as compared to other weed control treatments evaluated at 15 cm
of row spacing sowing at MWU and SARC, respectively. Interaction of row spacing,
herbicide rate and sites had significant (P<0.05) effect on total weed control efficiency,
the highest total weed control efficiency (74.3%) was obtained from 15 cm row spacing
combined with Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha-1 followed by Pyroxsulam 0.37 lt ha-1 integrated with
15 cm row spacing at MWU. This is reduced row spacing increase the weed control
efficacy even in reduced doses of herbicide.

Considering the effect of herbicide rate, row spacing and site significant (P<0.01) effect
was recorded to plant height and days 50% heading. Accordingly, the highest plant height
(103.6 cm) was recorded at the 15 cm row spacing of weed check at MWU while the
lowest plant height (89 cm) was recorded at weed free with 15 row spacing at SARC.
Increasing the weed density and decreasing of row spacing increase the plant height, the
highest days to heading (72.3) was recorded at MWU with 25 cm row spacing of weed
check treatment at MWU. While the early days to heading was (63) with 15 row spacing
integrated with weed free at SARC. Although effective tiller were siginificantly (P<0.05)
affected by interaction of row spacing and weed management. The highest effective
tillers numbers (7.6) per plant was obtained from 25 cm row spacing with weed free
treatment followed by (7 ) per plant with 15 cm row spacing with Pyroxsulam in the rate
of 0.5 lt ha-1at SARC while the lowest tillers were recorded at MWU weed check with 25
cm row spacing.

Number of seeds per spike were also significantly (P<0.01) affected by interaction of row
spacing and herbicide rate. The maximum (59.8) numbers of seeds per spike were
recorded from 15 cm row spacing with weed free treatment. Indeed Aboveground dry
biomass were significantly (P<0.01) affected by interaction of row spacing and herbicide
rate. Whereas 15 cm row spacing integrated with weed free and Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha -1
treatments resulted the highest above ground dry biomass (12417.4 kg ha -1) and (12107
kg ha-1), respectively. Accordingly, decreasing row spacing increased the efficacy of the
herbicide rate and aboveground dry biomass of the bread wheat. Furthermore, the

51
interaction effect of row spacing and herbicide rate had significant effect on grain yield
and harvest index. The maximum (4985.7 kg ha -1) grain yield was recorded from 15 cm
row spacing integrated with weed free plots followed by 15 cm row spacing integrated
with Pyroxsulam 0.5 lt ha-1 (4846.9 kg ha-1) and the highest (40%) harvest was recorded
from the integration of 15 cm Pyroxsulam 0.5 ha-1. Regarding economic analysis, the
highest net benefit (49,246.5 ETB ha-1) was obtained by combined integration of 15 cm
row spacing with Pyroxsulam at rate of 0.5lt ha-1

In general, significant differences in grain yield and most of agronomic parameters of

bread wheat were observed due to weed management and row spacing, the use of 15 cm
row spacing for bread wheat planting with Pyroxsulam at the rate of 0.5 lt ha-1 can be
recommend tentatively for Bale Highlands area. However, as this was one season
experiment, this experiment has to be repeated over seasons with consideration of cost of
production to reach at conclusive recommendation. Different methods of weed
management and integration of herbicides could be a researchable priority problem for
future.

52
 6. REFERENCE

Abiot Mekonnen. 2017. Effects of Seeding Rate and Row Spacing on Yield and Yield
Components of Bread Wheat (Triticum Aestivum L.) in Gozamin District, East Gojam
Zone, Ethiopia. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 7(4): 2224-3208.
Adebayo O, Ibraheem O, 2015. The current status of cereals (maize, rice and sorghum) crops
cultivation in Africa: Need for integration of advances in transgenic for sustainable crop
production. International Journal of Agricultural Policy and Research.3 (3): 233-245.
Akesson N.B. and Yates W.E. 1987. Effect of weather factors on the application of herbicides.
In: Methods of Applying Herbicides (ed. by McWhorter C.G. and Gebhardt M.R.). Weed
Science Society of America, Champaign, IL, USA, 335–344.

Alegere, F.C. Stevenson, Vanasse, A., and Lalonde, O. 2011. Weed management in organic and
herbicide-free systems under conservation tillage: the ultimate challenge Agriculture and
Agriculture-Food Canada, Saskatoon Research Centre.
Alemayehu, S.T., Paul, D., Sinafikeh, A. 2011. Crop Production in Ethiopia: Regional Patterns
and Trends. Development Strategy and Governance Division, International Food Policy
Research Institute, Ethiopia Strategy Support Program II, Ethiopia. ESSP II Working
Paper No. 016.
Ali S. 2004. Crop Protection 2004. Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development,
Edmonton, Canada.
Amanuel Gorfu, Tanner, D.G. and Assefa Tadese. 1992. On-farm evaluation of pre-and
postemergence grass herbicides on bread wheat in Arsi Region of Ethiopia. pp. 330-337.
In: Tanner, D.G. and Mwangi, W. (Eds). Proceedings of the Seventh Regional Wheat
Workshop for Eastern, Central and South Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: CIMMYT.
Amare Aleminew, Adane Legas, and Mekonen Misganaw. 2015. Yield Response of Bread
Wheat to Timing of Urea Fertilizer Application in Eastern Amhara Region. Sirinka
Agricultural Research Center, Woldia, Ethiopia. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and
Healthcare. 5(3):180-183.

53
Amare Assefa. 2017. Response of Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)Varieties to Different
Seeding Rate for Growth, Yield and Yield Components in Kombolcha District, North-
Eastern Ethiopia.Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare,7(23):122-124.
Ashenafi Mitiku and Dawit Dalga. 2014. Effect of Herbicide on Weed Dynamics and Yield and
Yield Attribute of Bread Wheat (Triticum aesativum L.) in Southeastern Ethiopia.
International Journal of Technology Enhancement and Emerging Engineering, 2 (4):
2347-4239.
Ashiq M, Sattar A, Ahmed N, Muhammad N. Role of herbicides in crop production. Pub.
Unique enterprises 17-A, Gulberg colony, Faisalabad, Pakistan, 2007; 8-9.

Ashiq, M. and Cheema, Z.A. 2005. Effective Use of Herbicides. Weed Science. Allelopathy
Lab.University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Ashrafi, Z.Y, H. R.Mashadi, S. Sadeghi and MWUrt E. Blackshaw. 2009. Study Effects of
Planting Methods and Tank Mixed Herbiciedes on Weeds Controlling and Wheat Yield.
Journal of agriculture science 1 (1): 101-111.
Auskalnis, A., and A. Kadzys. 2006. Effect of timing and dosage in herbicide application on
weed biomass in spring wheat. Agronomy Research 4:133-136.
Balasubramaniysn, P. and Palaniappan, S.P.2007. Principles and Practices of Agronomy, 2nd
Edition, Agrobios (India).
Barroso, J., D. Ruiz, C. Escribano, L. Barrios, and C. Fernandez- Quintanilla. 2009. Comparison
of three chemical control strategies for Avena sterlis ssp. ludoviciana. Crop Protection
28:393-400.
Blackshaw R.E., Molnar L.J. and Janzen H.H. 2004. Nitrogen fertilizer timing and application
method affect weed growth and competition with spring wheat. Weed Science. 52, 614–
622.
Blackshaw, R.E., Beckei, H.J., Molnar, L.J., Entz, T., Moyer, R.J., 2005. Combining agronomic
practices and herbicides improves weed management in wheat–canola rotations within
zero tillage production systems. Weed Science, 53: 528- 535.
Boström U. and Fogelfors H. 2002. Long-term effects of herbicideapplication strategies on
weeds and yield in spring-sown cereals. Weed Science. 50, 196–203.

54
Casper, B.B.and R.B. Jackson. 1997. Plant competition underground.Annual Reviews of
Ecological System, 28:545-570.
Chandrasekaran, B, Annadurai,K and Samasundaram ,E . 2010. New age Textbook of
Agronomy, New Age International (P) limited Publishers, New Delhi, India.
Chhokar, R.S, Sharma, R.S, and Sharma .I. 2013. Weed management strategies in wheat-A
review. Journal.of Wheat Research.4 (2): 1-21.
Chhokar, R.S., Sharma, R.K. and Sharma, I. 2012. Weed management strategies in wheat: A
review. Journal of. Wheat Research., 4: 1-21.
Chhokar, R.S., Sharma, R.K., Chauhan, D.S., Mongia, A.D. 2006. Weed Research, pp 46- 40.
CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center). 1988. From Agronomic Data
to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics Training Manual. Completely revised
edition. Mexico.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency), 2016: Agricultural sample survey report on Area and
production of major Crops (private peasant holdings, meher season 2015 /2016, Addis
Ababa Ethiopia, the FDRE statistical bulletin 584, Volume I. CSA, April 2016.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency), 2017: Agricultural sample survey report on Area and
production of major Crops (private peasant holdings, meher season 2016 /2017; Addis
Ababa Ethiopia, the FDRE statistical bulletin 584, Volume I. CSA, April 2017.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency). 2017/18. Central statistical agency agricultural sample survey
report on area and production of major crops private peasant holdings, meher season.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Cudney .D W., Jordan LS. and Hall A.E. 1991. Effect of wild oat infestation on light interception
and growth rate of wheat. Weed science, 39: 175 -179.
Dawit Dalga .2016.Weed Dynamics and Yield of Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in
response to weed management and Nitrogen fertilizers rates in Southern Ethiopia.
Scientific Agriculture, 16(1): 8-19.
Dawit Dalga, Sharma, J.J. Tamado Tana. 2014a. Growth and Yield of Bread Wheat (Triticum
aestivum L.) as influenced by Row spacing and Weeding frequency in Southern Ethiopia.
Scientific Agriculture, 8(1): 19-30

55
Dawit Dalga, Sharma, J.J., and Tamado Tana.2014b. Evaluation of herbicides and their
combination for weed management in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) International
Journal of Novel Research in Life Sciences, 1(1): 31-47.
Dereje Gorfu and Yaynu Hiskias, 2000. Yield loss of crops due to diseases in Ethiopia. Ethiopian
Journal of Pest Management, 5: 55-67.
Devasenapathy,PT,Remesh B. 2008. Efficiency Indices for Agriculture Managements Research
New India Publishing Agency, New Delhi-India, PP. 57-64.
Dieleman J.A., Mortensen D.A. and Martin A.R. 1999. Influence of velvetleaf (Abutilon
theophrasti) and common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) density variation on weed
management outcomes. Weed Science. 47, 81–89.
Din, B.U., Shafi, M., Anjum, .M.M., Nawab, .A.M.T and Jalel, A. 2017. Wheat yield and yield
components as affected by tillage practices and row spacing. International Journal of
Agriculture and Environment Research, 3(1):131-136.
El_Metwally, I. M., Abd El- Salam, M. S and Ali, O.A.M. 2015.Effect of Zinc Application and
Control on Wheat Yield and It’s Associated Weeds Grown in Zinc-Deficient Soil.
International Journal of Chemical Technology Research, 8 (4): 1588-1600.
Esheteu Bekele, Ferdu Azerefegne and Tsedeke Abate. 2006. Faciltating the Implementation and
Adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Ethiopia: Planning workshop from
October 13-15th 2003 at the Melkassa Agricultural Research Center, EARO.
Eslami, S.V., Gill, G.S., Bellotti, B., Mc Donald, G., 2006. Wild radish (Raphanus
raphanistrum) interference in wheat. Weed Science, 54: 749-756.
Eyob Bezabeh, Tesfaye Haregewoin, Dejene Haile giorgis, Fitsum Daniel, Baye Belay, 2015:
Change and growth rate analysis in area, yield and production of wheat in Ethiopia;
Research Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Management, Ethiopian Institute of
Agricultural Research, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.. 4(4), pp. 189-191.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2014. Crop Prospects and Food Situation.
GAIN (Global Agricultural Information Network ), 2014.
Gibson, L and Benson, B.2002. Origin, History and Uses of Oat (Avena sativa) and Wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.). Iowa University, Department of Agronomy.
Grain and Feed Annual Report.2013. A Report on assessment of commodity and trade issues
made by USDA staff and not necessarily statements of US Government Policy.

56
Gupta, O.P. 2004. Modern weed management. 2nd ed. p. 18-23. Agrobios, Jodhpur, India.
Gupta, O.P., 2004.The nature of weed competition. In: modern weed management with special
reference to agriculture in the tropics and sub tropics. A text book and manual. Agrobios,
India. 310p.
Habtamu Admassu, Mezgebu Getinet, Timothys, Thomas, Michael Waithaka, Miriam
Kyotalimye, 2012: East African Agriculture and Climate Change: A Comprehensive
Analysis Ethiopia, International Food Policy Research Institute.
Hailu GM .2003. Wheat production and research in Ethiopia .EIAR, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Hailu G-M., Tunner, D.G., Mengistu, H. (1991). Wheat research in ethiopia: a historical
perspective. Adiss Abeba: IAR/CIMMYT.
Harker, K. N & Blackshaw, R. E. 2000. Predicting when low herbicide rates may be effective.
The 10 ‘W’s of weed control. Research Roundup. Barley Country Summer .
Harrison, H. F., Jr. 1992. Developing herbicide tolerant crop cultivars. Weed Technology, 6: 613-
614.
Hirst, K.K. 2015. Wheat Domestication .The History and Origin of floury grain.

Holt, J.S, 1992. Significance and distribution of herbicide resistance. Weed Technology, 4:141-
149.
Hozayn, M. Elshahawy, T.A., and Shararaa, A. 2012. Implementation of Crop orientation and
Row spacing for controlling weeds and increasing yield in wheat. Australian Journal of
Basic and Applied Science, 6(3): 422-427.
Hussain, M., Z. Mehmood, M. B. Khan, S. Farooq, D.J. Lee and M. Farooq, 2012. Narrow Row
Spacing Ensures Higher Productivity of Low Tillering Wheat Cultivars. International
Journal of Agriculture and Biology,14: 413 – 418.
IAR, 1987, Asosa Research Center Progress Report for 1986-1988. In: Tsedeke Abate (Ed.)
1985. A Review of Crop Protection Research in Ethiopia. Proceeding of 1st Ethiopian
Crop Protection Symposium. 4-7 Feb. 1985, IAR Addis Ababa.
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), 2016: Wheat 4
Africa Updates is a newsletter of the SARD-SC Wheat program, an initiative Funded by
African Development Bank, AfDB. The project is implemented by ICARDA in 12
countries across Africa in partnership with NARS, No.3.

57
Iqbal, N., N. Akbar, M. Ali, M. Sattar and L. Ali. 2010. Effect of seed rate and row spacing on
yield and yield components of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J. Agric. Res. 48(2): 151-
156.
Jena, S.N. and Behera, A.K. 1998. Effect of row spacing, seed rate and fertilizer levels on weeds
and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum). Indian Agriculturist, 42(2):139-142.
Kahramanoglu, I., and F.N. Uygur. 2010. The effects of reduced doses and application timing of
metribuzin on redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) and wild mustard (Sinapis
arvensis L.). Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 34:467-474.
Kebede Desta.2002. Weed control methods used in Ethiopia. Head, Agricultural Implements and
Equipment, Rural Technology Promotion Department Ministry of Agriculture
Kemal, A.M. Bedry, L. Khidir, El and El Habieb, R.Y. 2012. Evaluation of pyroxsulam for post
emergence weed control in wheat.pp.7 in Third Conference of Pests Management in
Sudan February 3-4, 2014 CPRC-ARC, Wad Medani (Sudan).
Kenezevic, S.Z., Evans, S.P., Blankenship, E.E., Van Acker, R.C., and Lindquist, J.L. 2000.
Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis, Agronomy and
Horticulture Faculty Publication Paper 407.
Khan, M., and N. Haq. 2002. Wheat crop yield loss assessment due to weeds. Sarhad Journal of
Agriculture 18:449-453.
Khan, M.A., Marwat, K.B., Khan, N. and Khan, I.A. 2003. Efficacy of different herbicides on
the yield and yield components of maize. Asian Journal of Plant Science,2: 300-304.
Kudsk P. and Kristensen J.L. 1992. Effect of environmental factors on herbicide performance.
In: Combellack J.H., Levich K.J., Richardson R.G., eds. First International Weed Control
Congress (Melbourne, Australia, 17–21 February 1992). Weed Science Society of
Victoria, Melbourne, 173–186.
Landon, J.R., 1991. Booker Tropical Soil Manual: A Handbook for Soil Survey and Agricultural
Land Evaluation in the Tropics and Subtropics. Longman Scientific and Technical,
Essex, New York. 474p.
Lemerle D., Gill G.S., Murphy C.E., Walker S.R., Cousens R.D., Mokhtari S. et al. 2001.
Genetic improvement and agronomy for enhanced wheat competitiveness with weeds.
Aust. Journal of. Agricuture. Research. 52, 527–548

58
Liebman, M. & Gallandt, E.R. (1997) Many lttle hammers: ecological management of crop–
weed interactions. Ecology in Agriculture (ed. L.E. Jackson), pp. 291–343. Academic
Press, San Diego, CA.
Luchia Tekle, Hadush Hagos and Hadas Beyene .2017. Evaluation of frontline demonstration of
herbicide (Pyroxsulam) for weed control in bread wheat in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia.
Journal of Agricultural extension and rural development 10(1): pp. 20-27.
Marwat M.I., H.K. Ahmad, K.B. Marwat and G. Hassan. (2002). Integrated weed management in
wheat. I. Weed density, dry weed biomass, absolute growth rate and grain yield. Pak. J.
Weed Science. Research., 8 (1-2): 81-93.
Marwat, K.B, Hussain, Z. and Saeed, M. 2008. Chemical weed management in wheat at higher
altitudes. Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research, 11(3-4): 102-107.
Medd R.W., Van de Den J., Pickering D.I. and Nordblom T. 2001. Determination of
environment-specific dose–response relationships for clodinafop-propargyl on Avena
spp. Weed Research. 41, 351–368.
Meseret Negash, Tadesse Brihanu and Teshome Bogalle, 2008. Effect of frequency and time of
hand weeding in haricot bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Production at Bako. Ethiopian
Journal of Weed Management, 2:.59-69.
Milne A.E., Finnan A.P., Miller P.C.H. and Mayes J.A. 2004. A spray nozzle selection support
system for herbicide applications. Aspects Applied. Biology. 71, 201–206.
Minot, N., Warner, J., Lemma, S., Kassa, L., Gashaw, A., and Rashid, S. (2015). The Wheat
Supply Chain in Ethiopia: Patterns, Trends, and Policy Options. International Food
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Washington, DC.
Minotti, P. L. and Sweet, R. D. 2015. Role of crop competition in limiting losses from weeds. pp.
351 - 367. In: Pimentel, D. (ed.), CRC
MoA (2016): Crop variety register, Issue no. 12, Plant variety release, protection and seed qualty
control directorate, Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
MoA (Ministry of Agriculture) .2011. Guideline on Irrigation Agronomy. MoA, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
MoARD (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development), 2016. Animal and plant health
regulatory directorate crop variety register. Issue No. 13. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

59
Mohammad MA, Hassan F, Aziz I, Khan MH (2001). Comparative study of different weed
management techniques in wheat (Triticum aestivum) under rain fed conditions. Pak.
Journal. Arid Agriculture. 12: 19-23.
Mohler, C.L. (2001) Enhancing the competitive abilty of crops. Ecological Management of
Agricultural Weeds (eds M. Liebman, C.L. Mohler & C.P. Staver), in press. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Mohler, C.L., 2001. Enhancing the competitive abilty of crops. In: Liebman, M., Mohler, C.L.,
Staver, C.P. (eds), Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK: 269-321.
Mongia, A.D., Sharma, R.K., Kharub, A.S., Tripathi, S.C., Chhokar, R.S.and Shoran,.J .2005.
Coordinated research on wheat production technology in India. Karnal, India,
Directorate of Wheat Research, 20: 40.
Muhammad Farooq Khalil1, Gul Hassan, Gulzar Ahmad, Sajjad Anwar and Sajid Khan, 2013.
Comparative Efficacy of Herbicides on yield and yield components of Wheat (Triticum
aestivum L.), ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science. 8,(1), January 2013
ISSN 1990-6145, www.arpnjournals.com.
Nanda, S.S. and Patro, S.S. (1996). Effect of weed management practices, row spacing and
fertilizer levels on growth and yield of wheat. Indian Journal. Weed Science., 28 (1&2) :
67-69.
Nano Alemu, Sharma, J.J. and Firdisa Iticha .2016. Effect of weed management practices and
nitrogen levels on weeds, yield components and yield of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum
L.) at Kulumsa, Southerneastern Ethiopia. World Journal of Agricultural sciences, 12(6):
437-488.
Nazarko, O.M., Van Acker, R.C., Entz, M.H., 2005. Strategies and tactics for herbicide use
reduction in field crops in Canada: a review. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 85: 457-
479.
Olsen, J., Weiner, J., 2005. Effects of density and spatial pattern of winter wheat on suppression
of different weed species. Weed Science, 53: 690-694.
Page, E. R. and Willenborg, C. J. 2013. Dynamics and management of crop-weed interference.
Prairie Soils and Crops Journal 6: 24 - 32.

60
Pandey, B.P., Basnet, K.B., Bhatta, M.R., Sah, S.K., Thapa, R.B., and Kandel, .T.P.2013.Effect
of row spacing and direction of sowing on yield and yield attributing characters of wheat
cultivated in Western Chitwan, Nepal. Agricultural Science, 4(7): 309-316.
Peterson, R. F. 1965. Wheat botany, cultivation and utilization. Inter science publisher inc.,
New York. 422p.
Prakash, A., Sharma, K.C. and Mishra, R.D. 1986. Control of Phalaris minor and wild oats in
Wheat by cultural and chemical methods. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 31: 411-413.
Qasim JR, and CL Foy, 2001. Weed allelopathy; its ecological impact and future prospect.
Journal of Crop Production, 4: 43-120.
Radosevich, S. R. 1997. Weed Ecology: Implication for Management 2 nd eds. John Willey and
Sons, Inc. New York.
Radosovoch, Jodieholt and Cloudio Gherss .1997. Weed ecology implication for management
(2nd edition) John Wily and Sons, Inc New York USA.
Rahel Tigabu and Fekadu Asfaw. 2016. Effect of Row Spacing and Seed Rate on Yield and
Yield Components of Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in Dalbo Awtaru, Wolatia
Zone southern Ethiopia. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 6(7): 58- 67.
Rahel Tigabu, Fikadu Asfaw, 2016: Effects of Seed Rate and Row Spacing on Yield and Yield
Components of Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Biology, Agriculture and
Healthcare, ISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X (Online) .6,(7).
Ramsey R.J.L., Stephenson G.R. and Hall J.C. 2005. A review of the effects of humidity,
humectants, and surfactant composition on the absorption and efficacy of highly water-
soluable herbicides. Pestic. Biochemical. Physiology. 82, 162–175.
Rao, .I.U. and Pandy, B.K. 2007. Origin and Introduction of Crop Plants, Cereals and Pulses
Department of Botany, University of Delhi, Delhi -1107 India.
Rezene Fessehaie & Yohannes Lemma, 2003. Control of Snowdenia polystachya in large scale
wheat production: herbicide resistance in context. pp. 78-88. In: Bedada Girma. BADE.
Bale Agricultural Development Enterprise: Proceedings of the Agronomy Workshop,
March 20-21, 2000, Melkassa. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Rezene Fessehaie, Taye Tessema ,Kedir Nefo , Agumas Belle, Takle Negewo and Assefa Taa
.2008.pp 440-443 Weed research in small cereals in Ethiopia Presented pp 440-443 IN:

61
 14th Annual conference of plant protection society at Ethiopia (PPSE) ,Addis Ababa
Ethiopia
Rezene Fessehaie. 2005. Weed science research and extension in Ethiopia: Challenges and
responses. Key note address. Ethiopian Weed Science Society 7th Annual Conference. 24
-25 November 2005, EARO,Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Royal Society. Reaping the benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global
Agriculture; Royal Society: London, UK, 2009; p. 76. ISBN 978-0-85403-784-1.
Saini,J.P., Rameshwar, C.S., Kumar, R. and Nisha, R. 2014. Effect of intercrops and spacing on
weed suppression and yield in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Under organic
conditions. International Journal of Current Research, 6 (7):7418-7422.
Samuel Gebresellasie, Mekbib G. Haile, Matthias Kaskuhl, 2017: The Wheat Sector in Ethiopia:
Current Status and Key Challenges for Future Value Chain Development; Center for
SAS (Statistical Analysis System) Institute. 2003. SAS Version 9.1 © 2002-2003. SAS Institute,
Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA.
SAS Institute 2003. SAS User’s guide, Statistics version 9.1.3 ed. SAS Inst., Cary, NC, USA.
Sayed Rahim Ghafari, Anchal Dass, Habibullah Hamayoun, Mohammad Qayom Mangal and
Abdul Hadi Omran. 2017. Effect of row spacing on different wheat (Triticum aestivum
L.). International Journal of Applied Research 3(7): 93-97.
Sharma J.J. 1995. Effect of sowing methods and herbicides application on weeds in wheat.
Indian Journal of Weed Science, 3 (22): 94-96.
Shaw D.R. 2005. Translation of remote sensing data into weed management decisions. Weed
Science. 53, 264–273.
Siddique I, Bajwa R, Zil-e-huma and Javaid A. Effect of six problematic weeds on growth and
yield of wheat. Pakistan Journal of Botany 42.4(2010): 2461-2471.
Singh A, Kaur R, Kang JS and Singh G. Weed Dynamics in Rice-Wheat Cropping System,
Global Journal of Biology. Agriculture and Health Sciences 1(2012): 7-16.
Singh Samunder. 2007. Role of management practices on control of isoproturon-resistant
lttleseed canarygrass (Phalaris minor) in India. Weed Technology 21: 339- 346.
Singh, B., Dhaka, A.K., Pannu, R.K. and Kumar, S. 2013. Integrated weed management-a
strategy for sustainable wheat production - a review. Agriculture Reviews, 34 (4): 243-
255.

62
Singh, R.K., Verma, S.K., Sharma, Rajvir and Singh, S.B. (2009). Bio-efficacy and selectivity of
sulfosulfuron and metribuzin before and after irrigation in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)
under zero tillage system. Indian Journal. Agriculture. Science.,79(9) : 735-739.
Steckel, G.J., L.M. Wax, F.W. Simmons and W.H. Phillips, 1997. Glufosinate Efficacy on
Annual Weeds is Influenced by Rate and Growth Stage.Weed Technology., 11: 484-488.
Sunday, O. and Udensi, E. 2013. Evaluation of Pre-Emergence Herbicides for Weed Control in
Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] in a Forest-Savanna Transition Zone. American
Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 3: 767-779.
Talgre, L., E. Lauringson, and M. Koppel. 2008. Effect of reduced herbicide dosages on weed
infestation in spring barley. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture 95:194-201.
Tamado Tana and Milberg, P. 2000. Weed flora in arable fields of eastern Ethiopia with
emphasis on the occurrence of Parthenium hysterophorus. Weed Research, 40: 507-521.
Tanner, D.G. and Giref, S. 1991. Weed control research conducted on wheat in Ethiopia. In:
Wheat Research in Ethiopia: A Historical Perspective. Hailu Gebre-Mariam, Tanner,
D.G. and Mengistu Hulluka Eds. pp.235-276.IAR/CIMMYT, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Tanner, D.G. And S. Grife, 1991. Weed control research conducted on wheat In Ethiopia. In
wheat research in Ethiopia: a historical perspective. Institute of agricultural research and
international maize and wheat improvement center.
Taye, T., Tanner, D.G. and Mengistu, H. 1996. Grass weeds competition with bread wheat in
Ethiopia: I. Effect on selected crop and weed vegetative parameters and yield
components. African Crop Science Journal 4: 399-409.
Tekalign Tadesse, 1991. Soil, Plant, Water, Fertilizer, Animal Manure and Compost Analysis.
Working Document No. 13. International Livestock Research Center for Africa (ILCA),
Addis Ababa.
Tesfaye Amare. 2014. Effect of Weed Management Method on Weeds and Yield of Wheat
(Triticum aestivum L). African Journal of Agricultural Research, 9 (24): 1914-1920.
Tewodros Ayalew, Bereket Abebe and Tarekegn Yoseph. 2017.Response of Wheat (Tritium
aestivum L.) to Variable Seed Rates: African Journal of Agricultural Research,. 12(14),
pp. 1177-1181.
Thomas A.G. and Dale M.R.T. 1991. Weed community structure in spring-seeded crops in
Manitoba. Canada. Journal. Plant Science. 71, 1069–1080.

63
USAID (United States Agency for International Development) , 2010. Staple Foods Value Chain
Analysis. Country Report, Ethiopia. Addis Ababa.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture),2019.World Agricultural Production
Waheed, A., Qureshi R., Jakhar, G.S. H. and Tareen .2009.Weed community dynamics in wheat
crop of District Rahim Ya Khan, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 41: 247-254.
Walia U S, Kaur M and Chahal P S (2007) Cultural control of Phalaris minor Retz. (lttle seed
canary grass) in wheat. J Res Punjab Agric Univ 44: 266-72.
Walker, S.R., Medd, R.W., Robinson, G.R., Cullis, B.R., 2002. Improved management of Avena
ludoviciana and Phalaris paradoxa with moredensely sown wheat and less herbicide.
Weed Research, 42: 257-270.
Wiles L.J. 2005. Sampling to make maps for site-specific weed management. Weed Science. 53,
228–235.
Winkle M.E., Leavitt J.R.C. and Burnside O.C. 1981. Effects of weed density on herbicide
absorption and bioactivity. Weed Science. 29, 405–409.
Wolf T.M., Harrison S.K., Hall F.R. and Cooper J. 2000. Optimizing postemergence herbicide
deposition and efficacy through applicator variables in no-till systems. Weed Science. 48,
761–768.
Zand E., Baghestani M.A., Soufizadeh S., Eskandari A., Poura- zar R., Veysi M., Mousavi K.,
Barjasteh A. 2007. Evalua- tion of some newly registered herbicides for weed control in
wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in Iran. Crop Prot. 26 (9): 1349–1358.
Zhang, J., S.E. Weaver, and A.S. Hamill. 2000. Risks and reliabilty of using herbicides at below-
labeled rates. Weed Technology 14:106-115.
Zimdahl, R.L. 2004. Crop weed competition: review international plant protection center Oregon
state university, carvallis Oregon, USA.196pp
Zoschke A. 1994. Toward reduced herbicide rates and adapted weed management. Weed
Technol. 8, 376–386.

64
7. APPENDIX

65
Appendix Table 1. Meteorological data of temperature and rain fall of MWU and SARC
at year 2018/19.

Minimum Maximum
Month Rain fall temperature temperature
o o
c c
MWU SARC MWU SARC MWU SARC
July 40.3 0 9.4 9.2 21.5 23.9
August 168.1 70.3 9.7 9.6 22.1 24.1
September 64.1 123.3 9.3 9.7 21.7 24
October 71.7 65.5 8.9 8.8 21.9 24.2
November 30.7 23.5 7.6 8.4 21.3 23.5
December 3.55 0 6.1 6.8 22.1 23.5
Total 378.45 282.6
Mean 8.5 8.7 21.7 23.8
Source: Robe meteorological station 2018/19

Appendix Table 2. ANOVA table for weed densities and weed dry weight due to sites,
row spacing and herbicide rate method and their interaction at MWU and SARC.

Mean
squares
BLWD GWD SWD TWD WDW
Source of varation DF WCE %
m-2 m-2 m-2 m-2 g m-2
Replications within 2.1ns 0.9ns 0.17ns 2.1ns 1.2ns 12.7ns
4
site
Sites 1 28.5** 71.7** 27.4** 357.2** 43** 536**
Row spacing (RS) 2 84.8** 31.1** 1.6** 253.2** 41** 308.7**
Herbicide rate (HR) 4 2300** 204** 12.4** 4376.7** 1051** 1714.8**
RS x HR 8 21.1** 5.4** 0.6* 59.5** 8** 84.6**
RS x HR x Site 14 2.8* 14.6** 4.1** 13.4** 2* 36.6*
Error 56 1.5 0.6 0.1 2.3 906.3 13.5
CV (%) 8.9 10.8 15.4 33.1 8.7 8.9 10.8
Where, BLWD= Broadleaf weed density; GWD = Grass weed density; SWD=Sedge weeds; TWD = Total
weed density; density; WDW=Weed dry weight WCE= Weed control efficiency ; ns = non-significant; * =
Significant; ** highly Significant.

66
Appendix Table 3. ANOVA table for bread wheat growth parameters as affected by row
spacing and weed control method at MWU and SARC

Mean
squares
Source of varation DF DEE DH DPM PLH E.TIL SL
Replications within site 4 0.3ns 2.3* 3.1* 3ns 1.8* 0ns
Sites 1 0.1ns 71.1** 1.3ns 4.2ns 9.3** 0ns
Row spacing (RS) 2 0.2ns 27.1** 34.3** 67.1** 31.8** 8.2**
Herbicide rate (HR) 4 0.6ns 73.9** 60** 115.2** 34.7ns 31.4**
RS x HR 8 0.7ns 0.3ns 2.3* 1.5ns 0.9ns 0.09*
RS x HR x Site 14 0.0ns 2.4* 1.7ns 24.8** 0.9* 0ns
Error 56 0.4 0.7 1 4.4 0.4 0.02
CV (%) 8.2 1.2 0.8 2.1 15 2.5
Where, DEE = Days to emergence; DH=Days to heading;DPM= Days to Physiological Maturity; PLH=
Plant height; E.TIL = Effective tiller, SL=Spike length;; ns= non – significant,* = Significant, ** highly
Significant.

Appendix Table 4. ANOVA table for bread wheat growth parameters as affected by row
spacing and weed control method at MWU and SARC

Mean squares
Source of
DF KPS TKW ABG Gr Y HI
variation
Replications
within site 4 0.2ns 0.2ns 946533.7* 264079.92ns 34.5ns
Sites 1 0ns 0ns 464378.6ns 131470.4ns 42.4ns
Row spacing
(RS) 2 311.5** 42.8** 18724776.7** 4988752.6** 44.7ns
Herbicide rate
(HR) 4 920.5** 1135.8** 38146375.6** 10532837** 203.5**
RS x HR 8 5.1** 43** 1954737.6** 1270621** 88.4 *
RS x HR x Site 14 0ns 0ns 1097184.6ns 182714ns 40.5ns
Error 56 0.8 0.4 909486.4 145955.21 35.1
CV (%) 1.8 1.4 9.4 10.7 15.1
Where, KPS = Kernel per spike, TKW = Thousand kernel weight AGB = Aboveground biomass, Gr Y =
Grain yield, HI =Harvest index, ** = highly significant, * Significant ns = non-significant.

67